That sounds like a better policy than anything the Greens have conjured.

You're being facetious and you know it.

leave me out of this Afro.....

This thread has seriously gone downhill.

Well I think you need the retardation of retards to offset the retardation of the Greens. It probably all cancels each other out in the end, but I would prefer a mixed bag of retards as opposed to purely green retards, as it will probably mean less retardation of legislation passing through senate.

This whole concept of climate change being some sort of religion, where anyone who opposes is a 'denier', or that someone can be 'agnostic' on the subject really bothers me.

:shock: :shock:

In the name of politics I got my first document from the new ministerial division today

From the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Anyone care to guess where I work? One minister covering so many areas really is going to end in tears.

Ok, so just so we're clear here: Anyone who has a different standing in the political spectrum to you is a "retard", so the greens are retards. And even though they have actual policies and the Motoring Party don't, they're both equally as retarded as each other.

That's retarded.

Probably definitely rusty related.

Shame they got rolled into one, could have finally had a qualified PhD level politician with a Science background in a key role where they actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

-PB

DIICCSRTE or "Dick-ssert" doesn't sound palatable to me but probably an apt name for what it will become :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 26/9/2013 04:39:52 PM

Well it's not the actual policies that have merit it's the content in them, the Greens are a fringe political group who's policies are rejected by mainstream voters yet they hold the balance of power in the senate. If we have to prescribe rev heads in the senate to rescind their power in order to get more legislation passed then they are more worthy of their salaries than those who just cock block everything.

At least they've been elected for something that they stand for and have a system of ideals instead of being elected because they share the common ground with some voters of liking something loud and shiny. That's not a system for government.

Politics is a conflict business: why fear of dissent is self-defeating

Tony Abbott should learn from the leadership of John Howard – and the regicide of Kevin Rudd – and let ministers be grown-ups
Follow Katharine Murphy by emailBETA

Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Thursday 26 September 2013 20.22 AEST

Politics has become obsessed with the perils of dissent. "Disunity is death," is the current unassailable orthodoxy. It's a rational obsession, based on the less than elegant case study provided by the previous Labor government. But taken to extremes, dissent phobia is entirely self-defeating.

Let's start from first principles. Politics is a conflict business. Mandating and institutionalising a conflict-free environment in politics is an artifice, a construct, and an unstable one – as Kevin Rudd learned to his peril in June 2010.

Conventional wisdom says Labor was killed at the ballot box in September by the rolling disunity of the Rudd/Gillard civil war, a proposition both 100% true and also a pretty lazy substitution of the obvious for the important.

Of course the Rudd/Gillard civil war clubbed Labor to death, but the problem was actually more complex than two people who just couldn't get over themselves. Labor in the last period in government spawned not only a personality conflict between its brightest talents – the civil war had institutional root causes and underpinnings which are not as well understood. The story is perhaps best comprehended by beginning it at the beginning.

When Rudd came to power in 2007 it was clear he intended to lead from the top. An elaborate internal apparatus was constructed to serve that end, and to serve the related objective that the government speak with one voice. The "leader's prerogative", "do and say as I say" control-freakery culture had worked for Labor in opposition, so it was carried forward into government. In the short term it delivered concrete benefits. The new government appeared united and disciplined, forged with common purpose – unusual for a newbie government after a long period in opposition.

But internally, it was a different story. Ministers – important people in cabinet governments – felt themselves cowed by a system which ran counter not only to the culture of the Labor party but to all the natural conflict rhythms of politics. Almost from the start, senior Labor players who should have known better seemed to lack the language of dissent, either in public or in private.

Labor consequently comprehensively failed to develop the internal strength for productive, cathartic, disagreement. It's perhaps counter-intuitive but nonetheless absolutely true to note that governments who survive for long periods are governments that learn to ventilate and synthesise their internal dissent, not governments that actively avoid conflict.

So a system engineered to serve Rudd and his interests became a system which progressively and irrevocably isolated him from colleagues, who became at first irritated, then disaffected, then deracinated, then ultimately furtive and desperate. Having failed to develop a language to manage differences, to speak honestly and candidly, to say to the leader "your system stinks, we are drifting, process is paralysed" – there was a collective over-reaction to Rudd's oppressive and brittle style of leadership. The resort was not diplomatic intervention, but regicide.

It's an extreme case perhaps, but not, ultimately, an illogical one. All the events after June 2010 simply played out the consequences of the first act.

The point of this Dispatch is not to chop over old barren ground but to look ahead, and pose a simple question: has politics learned the most meaningful lesson of the past six years, or might the same cycle only repeat itself with a different cast of characters?

It is obviously far too soon to know the character of the new Abbott government. Any concrete judgments made now would be rash.

The Howard government over most of its life managed to create an effective balance between teamwork and dissent largely by allowing ministers to be grown-ups. While there was centralisation and careful co-ordination out of the prime minister's office, ministers nonetheless debated policy in public, commenting judiciously but regularly on contentious issues before the cabinet. Party-room boilovers were frequent and often productive. Abbott himself enjoyed considerable freedom during the Howard years, often speaking out in terms that his more disciplined contemporary self would regard now as a "gaffe" or an unhelpful lurch off script.

That government lasted more than a decade, in part due to Howard's effective management of internal dynamics – which included, at times, having the confidence and wisdom to allow himself to be "managed" to different positions by cabinet colleagues. Howard's gradual evolution on the subject of climate change, and on Indigenous affairs, is an obvious example. (Peter Costello would probably beg to differ with me on Howard's responsiveness to the will of colleagues, but I think the broad point is sound.)

As I've said it's early days, but Abbott would be wise to ensure he doesn't fall into the trap Labor fell into when making the transition from opposition to government – of seeing any appearance of contention as the enemy. He'd be really unwise to misdiagnose the true nature of Labor's problems over the past six years.

Abbott is highly sensitised to the importance of public discipline, having made the transition himself from boundary rider to leader. On Thursday he told reporters in Melbourne it was "very important the government speak with a united voice". Cohesion, he reasoned, was important. He made these remarks while cutting his education minister, Christopher Pyne, off at the knees after a bit of public adventurism on the subject of compulsory student unionism – adventurism that was entirely within Pyne's remit as portfolio minister.

Abbott is also intent on replacing Labor's "chaos" narrative with a "steady as she goes" governing narrative. Restoring the sort of "order" Abbott now craves to establish his new government is difficult in the current fragmented media environment. His basic impulse makes perfect sense, of course, but again there's a misdiagnosis trap.

Voters were heartily sick of the Labor chaos and disunity, that's true. But they were also alienated by a parade of senior figures who seemed to be running some sort of tactical game: senior figures who presented publicly as manufactured, inauthentic and expedient.

What politics needs is a bit more heart, a bit more passion, a bit more debate – a lot more sincerity and a lot more authenticity.

Voters aren't put off, in my view, by politicians of goodwill who prosecute ideas. They are put off by people who play political games, who mortgage the long term for the short term, and who too blithely play them for mugs.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/dispatches-fear-dissent-cripples-politics

Labor leadership race: rivals back greater say for grassroots members

Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten promise to keep the trial of members voting in preselections and on who will be party leader
Follow Lenore Taylor by email

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com, Thursday 26 September 2013 17.25 AEST

Labor has locked in a bigger role for its grassroots members, with both federal leadership contenders promising to continue trialling a direct membership vote in party preselections and to continue the new system of a membership vote for party leader.

But Anthony Albanese has also promised members a direct vote in electing delegates to the party's decision-making body – the national conference. His rival leadership contender, Bill Shorten, has not matched this pledge.

In a response to survey from Local Labor – a Labor grassroots organisation campaigning for party reform – Albanese said he would ensure the direct election of the federal parliamentary leader by members as well as by the caucus was permanent.

"Having given members a vote in this ballot I will strongly oppose any attempt to wind back this positive and necessary reform," he said.

Shorten said members were obviously "welcoming" new rules for the election of leaders – imposed by Kevin Rudd after he returned to the leadership – and said the rules had the potential to attract thousands of new party members.

He suggested the ALP "standardise the conduct and rules of these contests, including funding, voting eligibility and timeframes. A starting point for this conversation is that all members be granted full voting rights upon joining and that we investigate the use of online but independently audited voting systems for efficiency and integrity of process."

Asked whether Shorten was fully committed to continuing the system of giving members a 50% say in the election of the leader, a spokeswoman said he was.

Both contenders backed the continuation of trials for giving members a direct vote in electing conference delegates.

Local Labor's national patron, Dr Race Mathews, said the candidates' responses meant whoever was elected would implement sweeping reforms.

"We need to ensure the ALP has an engaged grassroots membership able to have meaningful input to policy development and ready to undertake effective community campaigning for the 2016 election," Mathews said.

The result of the Labor leadership ballot will be announced on 13 October.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/labor-leadership-grassroots-bigger-role

Hockey exposes “litany of failures” in Labor’s forecasts but stops short of promising a surplus in its first year

BY MALCOLM FARR NATIONAL POLITICAL EDITOR
news.com.au
September 27, 2013 11:26AM

THE new Government today used a $20 billion blowout revealed in final Budget figures for 2012-13 to accuse Labor of a “Budget mess” only the Coalition could fix.

Treasurer Joe Hockey accused the Labor government of “over-promising and underdelivering” and falsely claiming there had been a fall in revenue caused by the easing of the mining boom which required spending cuts.

“The fact is it is a litany of failures and political promises,” Mr Hockey told reporters.

The figures had no substantial surprises and closely matched the estimates presented by Treasury just before the September 7 election.

And Treasurer Hockey denied he had promised a surplus in his first year in office, saying he was now dealing with “an entirely different set of numbers”.

Mr Hockey said there had been “a further deterioration’’ in the figures projected for subsequent years, and he was testing Labor’s forecasts to see how “robust” they were.

“But what Australia needed was an injection of confidence. And we have done that,” said Mr Hockey, declining to speculate on further forecasts.

He said the $1.8 billion Labor had claimed was being dodged on fringe benefits tax on vehicles had already been found to be untrue.

The Coalition in Opposition had argued the government was spending too much, not bringing in too little in tax returns.

“There has been no ‘fall in revenue and receipts’ as often asserted by Labor,” Mr Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Corman said in a statement.

“Receipts for 2012-13 alone increased by 6.4 per cent, or $21 billion, over the previous year, 2011-12.”

The final figures for the year showed that forecasts made in May 2012 for the 12 months to the end of June this year were well off the mark:

* GDP growth estimated to be five per cent came in at 2.5 per cent;

* The expected $1.5 billion Budget surplus became an $18.8 billion deficit — a $20.4 billion deterioration;

* Net debt estimated to be $143.3 billion ended at $153 billion;

* Interest payments on debt were expected to reach $7 billion but ended up at $8.3 billion


http://www.news.com.au/national-news/hockey-exposes-8220litany-of-failures8221-in-labor8217s-forecasts-but-stops-short-of-promising-a-surplus-in-its-first-year/story-fncynjr2-1226728442460

No surprises there. It's a big mess the Libs will have to clean up.

I guess it's just like how Labor demonstrated a 'litany of failures' in Hockey's costings.

I always thought treasury provided the forecasts and ruling party of the day acted on them? :-k

They didn't demonstrate anything, they made false reckless allegations and were rebuked by the RBA. Hockeys costings haven't even had a chance to fail yet.

You don't need to demonstrate much when they weren't even released ;)

1.5 - 20.4 = 18.9

Basic maths is but a trivial and unnecessary detail to Newscorp media.

Maths is a left wing plot to destabilise the economy.

They also use it in their alarmist delusional climate 'science'.

They talk about Australia's debts, but how much money is owed to Australia?

How much is Govt debt?
How much is private debt?
How much is commercial debt?
How much is the banks, borrowing for the home market?
How much Is one off's ie Qantas buy any new jets?
Ho much iwar related?

Can Labor be blamed for rising unemployment?

Peter Reith and his fellow advocates are quick to blame labour laws for a rise of unemployment in Australia. Too bad their argument doesn't hold up

Matt Cowgill
theguardian.com, Friday 27 September 2013 17.22 AEST

We must give credit where it’s due: advocates for industrial relations reform most certainly practice what they preach on the issue of flexibility. Business groups and their supporters have been as supple as Gumby over the last few years, bending and stretching their arguments to fit the times and moving on without a second thought when things didn’t pan out as they’d warned.

First were the warnings of a "wages breakout". The economy, we were told, was “facing an economically irrational assault on a scale we have not witnessed for a quarter of a century.” Labor’s Fair Work laws had re-empowered those scary unions, which were set to push for unsustainable wage rises that would result in economic calamity. Except that didn’t happen. Real wages growth in Australia has been solid but in line with past levels, and has risen and fallen with the state of the economy.

When it became clear that the wages breakout wasn’t coming, the business lobby didn’t inflexibly stick to the argument. Instead, they switched their focus to productivity. Australia’s productivity growth has been much slower than it was in the 1990s. This is undeniable, and it’s not a good thing. But the slowdown in growth happened over a decade ago and a large part of it was due to the mining boom and big investments in electricity and water infrastructure, not due to changes in IR laws. This was no impediment to the would-be reformers, who seem to think that a productivity growth slowdown dating from around the turn of the century could be turned around if we just repealed labour laws that took effect in mid-2009.

Eventually, the productivity argument seemed to lose a bit of steam. Labour productivity grew faster in 2012 than it had in a decade, which made it a little harder to get the “Fair Work equals poor productivity” argument across. But the apparent abandonment of this rationale for reform hasn’t dulled the enthusiasm of Peter Reith and others spruiking a return to Howard-era industrial relations policy.

Instead, the goal posts have shifted again. The argument now is that Australia’s rising unemployment is the fault of the Fair Work Act. Reith warned darkly about slowing employment growth in the Drum, arguing that Tony Abbott needs to act on industrial relations to stem the rise in the jobless ranks.

This new line of attack from the agile IR advocates raises the question: is Labor’s Fair Work Act to blame for the rise in unemployment? It won’t surprise you to learn that I think the answer is a resounding "no".

Reith and the other proponents of the “Fair Work is killing jobs line” need to explain why the labour laws should take the blame for the recent rise in unemployment, but not the credit for the previous falls in joblessness that happened under the same regulations. In the first year of the Fair Work Act, the unemployment rate fell from 5.9% to 5.2%. The year after that it fell further, to 5%.

Were those falls in unemployment due to the new labour laws? I don’t think so. They had more to do with the cuts in interest rates, the economic stimulus packages, the fall in the Aussie dollar and the resurgence of China. But Reith’s assumption seems to be that the industrial relations legislation is the only thing affecting the level of unemployment. Even though this is patently silly, it doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. Why should Fair Work bear the blame for the recent rise in unemployment, and not the credit for the previous fall?

How would we know if industrial relations legislation was creating joblessness? In the 1970s and early 1980s, the story was fairly straightforward. Wages rose much faster than productivity growth, which boosted labour’s share of national income well above its typical level and squashed capital’s share. At the same time, unemployment and inflation both spiralled upwards, above the levels of many comparable countries. There was a lot going on at that time, including the OPEC oil crises, but there was reason to think that at least some of the rise in unemployment may have been caused by too-rapid wage increases. Union leaders recognised this, and entered into the Accord with Bob Hawke’s Labor government to secure an increased "social wage" (like Medicare) in return for wage restraint.

That story doesn’t fit today’s facts. Labour’s share of income is below, not above, its typical levels. Inflation is low and contained. Unemployment is rising, off a relatively low base, but remains below the level in many other developed countries. The relationship between economic growth and changes in unemployment doesn’t seem to have changed in recent years. Neither has the relationship between job vacancies and unemployment – a relationship that economists often use as a measure of the "efficiency" of the labour market.

Most observers have put the recent rise in unemployment down to a slowing in economic growth, which in turn is due to turmoil overseas, a slowing Chinese economy and a bumpy transition away from mining-led growth, and an Aussie dollar that has stayed stubbornly high. Reith and his fellow advocates ignore all these factors and instead point to that reliable scapegoat, labour laws.

The argument might not hold up, but you have to admire the brazen, bald-faced way Reith and others pivot from claim to claim, discarding past scares with barely a look over the shoulder.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/27/australia-australian-welfare

We have a budgetary crisis you know...

Kevin Rudd out in the cold in New York
Date
September 28, 2013 - 6:26PM
188 reading nowRead later
Ellen Connolly
Pin Itsubmit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions


Strolling alone: former prime minister Kevin Rudd in New York. Photo: Kristie Kellahan
Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd cut a lonely figure on the streets of New York on Friday – while just a few blocks away his old rival Julie Bishop stood confidently, addressing world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

A forlorn-looking Mr Rudd, who only a month ago enjoyed the privileges of an enormous entourage, was spotted strolling alone in Manhattan – no security personnel, no chief of staff and no friends.

It was in stark contrast to Australia's freshly minted Foreign Minister who spent Friday meeting the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and also the United Nation's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.


Mr Rudd is keeping a low profile. Photo: Andrew Meares
Later she delivered Australia's national statement at the general debate of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, in which she said she was "delighted" to take part, and that "the new Australian government will put economic diplomacy at the centre of our foreign policy".

Advertisement
"We will also continue to press for the council to take action to assist the humanitarian effort in Syria."

Ms Bishop's 10-minute address followed her world debut on Thursday as president of the UN Security Council, in which she successfully passed a landmark resolution on small arms and light weapons.

The cruel irony for Mr Rudd was that Ms Bishop's position chairing the two-hour meeting was only made possible thanks to his four-year campaign to snare a position on the council, a battle that was criticised and even ridiculed at the time by Ms Bishop.

Last year Ms Bishop said the campaign was a waste of taxpayers' money and, when Australia was awarded the position on the Security Council last October, she called it an "expensive victory".

But on Thursday she took the glory of Mr Rudd's efforts, and accepted praise from nation states, who applauded the Australian government for addressing the issue of small arms trade.

Meanwhile Mr Rudd kept a low profile on Thursday and Friday as he attended meetings at the UN of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO).

"He was there in his private capacity," a spokesman from the CTBTO said, adding that Mr Rudd was a member of the organisation's newly formed "Group of Eminent Persons".

"He was at the back at times but he wasn't really involved in any formal way."

It is understood Mr Rudd's stopover in the Big Apple is part of a holiday he is taking with wife, Therese Rein, which will also take in Britain and China.

Mr Rudd, who it is understood kept well away from Ms Bishop at the UN, spent yesterday morning again at a CTBTO conference – listening but having no involvement - and then joined dignitaries for lunch at the Hungarian embassy where he declined to speak to Fairfax Media.

"No thanks. I have commitments here," he said.

It has been just three weeks since he lost the Australian election and as he walked through New York alone yesterday, the reality of his new position as failed leader must have hit home.

Dressed in a navy suit, he looked like any other businessman.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-out-in-the-cold-in-new-york-20130928-2ukqf.html#ixzz2gC9szDoA

Final budget figures show smaller deficit than forecast

Joe Hockey refuses to make specific commitment about when the Coalition will return the budget to surplus

Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Friday 27 September 2013 13.18 AEST

Final budget figures for 2012-13 record a smaller deficit than the $19.4bn originally forecast in May.

The final budget outcome for 2012-13, released on Friday, recorded an underlying cash deficit of $18.8bn, an improvement of more than half a billion dollars.

The numbers are consistent with Labor's economic statement released in August and the pre-election fiscal outlook released during the election campaign. The improvement in the deficit position was based on higher than forecast company tax and GST collections, lower payments and higher earnings from the Future Fund.

But treasurer Joe Hockey, at a press conference in Canberra on Friday, sought to remind voters of Labor's previous unmet commitment to return the budget to surplus – a promise dumped by then treasurer Wayne Swan late in 2012.

Hockey also warned that the budget position had deteriorated since the August economic statement and pre-election fiscal outlook. He declined to be more specific, saying he would not "speculate" about forecasts ahead of the release of the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook. The government is yet to confirm when that key Treasury forecast will be released, but there is speculation that the document will not be in the public domain until the new year.

Despite campaigning against Labor's failure to return the budget to surplus after the global financial crisis, Hockey also declined to make any specific commitment on Friday about when the Coalition would return the budget to surplus. "You'll see our plan over the next few months," he said.

The treasurer said at Friday's press conference that the new government was going over previous budget estimates line by line. He confirmed that the government would need to pass legislation before Christmas to raise the debt ceiling. "This has to be dealt with and it's Labor's legacy," he said.

He said the first parliamentary sitting week since the election, expected to be in November, would deal with legislation repealing the carbon and mining taxes, abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Council and raising the debt ceiling.

Hockey also pointed to government plans to roll out its list of infrastructure projects, which could be funded in part by raising additional commonwealth debt.

"We are looking at ways we can stimulate growth in the next 18 months and beyond," Hockey said. The treasurer said infrastructure spends based on proper cost-benefit analyses were positive for economic growth.

But the former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan took to Twitter to blast the "pure hypocrisy" of the Coalition's floating of plans to fund new infrastructure via commonwealth debt after being critical of Labor for increasing debt to stimulate the economy.

"After railing against govt-backed debt to fund infrastructure for years, Libs now proposing govt-backed debt to fund infrastructure?" Swan tweeted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/budget-deficit-smaller-than-forecast