quote=mcjules]Still looking for a breakdown of where the funding goes but that previous article mentions 20% to broadcasting costs. So we're down to $800 million. If you really think about all the things they do, particular around providing media services to rural and remote communities that are completely unprofitable for the commercials it's probably not as ridiculous as it may sound.[/quote]

yeah right a lazy 19 million a week.....pretty sure you can do it for better than $19 million a week....... ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Haha pretty sure I couldn't. Running the budget of a large national corporation is nothing like running a household budget or a small business.

Edited by mcjules: 24/11/2014 10:06:01 AM

According to the right wing news it is . Sadly people like finky belive it so

I love the ABC but bloody hell they've ballooned into this huge thing. 1/2 a dozen TV stations, online presence, radio stations, foreign radio and TV.

There's a need for a national broadcaster but is a 24 hour news channel really necessary?

agree......mine is 6 million and it takes up large swathes of time....the red tape is enormous

ummmmm#-o ....the point i was making is the ABC costs $19 million a week to run....seems a little excessive....and when you research it and have a look they have been on a huge expansion which could be viewed as unnecessary or extravagant....

yeah running out of control......if business has to tighten the purse strings to survive so should government

Agreed. You've mentioned the red tape a number of times and blamed Labor for them. Do you mind elaborating on what they actually are? No need to mention:
1. Payroll tax
2. Workcover insurance
3. GST
4. Company tax
5. Income tax

As I know there's a decent amount of paperwork around those but both major parties don't seem to be interested in doing anything to reduce the paperwork side of things (half of these are state government requirements too).

:o

mcjules, you can't just ask people to clarify what they keep saying over and over without clarification. Have some respect.

Sorry, obligatory

RERD TERP

What if I look him in the eye, shake his hand and call him Mr batfink? :lol:

ok ...well there were 21,000 compliance regs introduced by Gillard...............

without getting into to much detail as it would take me hours....

there are more reporting requirements introduced for the ATO, we have to report on all sub contractors we use and what our labour and material ratios are for these sub contractors, if they exceed certain percentages then we have to do a different report with the amount of hours they work per week/month,......the paper work around employing people and the info required to start a tradesperson or apprentice has been expanded, such as handouts with their rights and my obligations, which seems absurd considering they are paid under an award that is available online and the union is more than willing to check things and ride your arse into the turf even if you are complying and doing the right thing, also the paperwork around WH&S has expanded as well as all the inductions required. It has added about 8 hours a week for my book keepers normal work load. there has been a lot of additional reporting that relates to super, information sharing between agencies and so on....my secretary and book keeper are more likely to know all the ins and outs, they have mentioned it to me, but to be honest there is nothing i can do but comply so i let it go through to the keeper and i have enough to do keeping 18-25 people busy and the company profitable.....

Gillard also introduced retrospective legislation on the retrenching of staff which cost us around $ 290,000 when we had to lay off people just after the GFC, this was an amount that we could not and had not factored in and very nearly cost me the company and my house. so i am very pissed off with these kunts who legislate to fuck employers over......i am more than happy to pay my way and remit all my correct taxes,superannuation and so on.....was a kunt act ......

i would say pleased to meet you, but please call me Andrew.....

Pleasure to meet you Mr Bolt!

-PB

Ricecrackerschuckle.gif

thanks for the compliment...;)

Thanks for responding.

21,000 sure sounds like a lot. Previous government really was productive!

Can't comment on all of them but the sub-contractors one I know quite well. Lot's of unscrupulous employers making people work as sub-contractors to get around paying taxes when they were really employees. Sucks for businesses like yours where (if your paperwork is all in line) are no doubt genuine subbies but it really was a problem that needed to be resolved as many of these people were on very low incomes and absolutely no safety net.

subbies make great money, problem is they don't manage themselves very well, blow all the money and don't put away super, holidays, sick leave and the like...... some companies use subbies to avoid paying, super, workers comp, public liability ,payroll tax & payg ....so the problems is that there is no compliance officers to keep them honest......if no one is out there checking people will always cheat.......

Your subbies make good money and agree some of them don't manage their money properly.

An example of the issue I was talking about were some cleaning companies were making their employees sub-contractors when in reality their not. They're paid bugger all money and (the key part) they only worked for the one company. It's not your problem but it's a case of some messing it up for everyone else.

i don't use sub contractors, i only employ full time quality tradesmen, and i run my own apprentices........and i supplement wit some casual staff...i only use sub contractors when really up against it and then they are mates in competition companies who help out each other from time to time, but its way to expensive.....

i hear what you say about the cleaning company........there needs to be some scrutiny around these operators, however it just doesn't exist and it makes it harder for the real people to make a living....

a good example is, i have an electrical wholesaler who i buy my equipment from, his son is an apprentice and works for a competitor, he doesn't get paid overtime, doesn't get paid super on his RDO's and several other bodgey things.......i compete directly on the same projects for the same builder and can't win a project......he has gone belly up 3 times and avoided his obligations and avoided his tax obligations, so i have no way of really competing against shit like that....but who polices that?? nobody, he's been doing it for 5-7 years, so all i can do is ask the builder to make sure they get their stautory statements signed by him to say he has paid super and his suppliers....yeah he signs them but it's all crap he hasn't done jack shit...pisses me off massively......and i miss the projects, and have to work ever so hard to win decent margin project to remain viable....doesn't seem fair to me to have to struggle due to prick like this

Sometimes you must wonder why you do it?

I work for myself as well and I was told at the beginning "if you work for yourself you only have to work 1/2 days, you just have to work out which 1/2 you want to work".

Talk about "never a truer word spoken".

All the blokes I know going "must be great working for yourself". They haven't a clue.

to be honest i have been doing it now for 25 years, i can handle all the shit that goes with it, cashflow, working capital, the human element of dealing with morons, having to prove yourself everyday, having to reinvent the company and your way of business every 3-5 years, the moron clients with unrealistic deadlines.....the thing that shits me is when there isn't enough work to go round and the attitude of the TAX department, they are so difficult and rigid it does my head in........i love to lead my men and i am proud to call them mates and work as a team, very rarely i need to dictate, very rarely indeed, they will bleed for me and they know i will do the same in return......awesome bunch of guys

Because I'm working this Saturday I've spent the day voting and brushing up on my 1850's political history, hopefully I can impress the odd person in school this election day.

Lewis report on ABC canvasses role for minister in directing how cuts be made

Date November 28, 2014 - 11:30PM

EXCLUSIVE

The federal government would gain new powers to set out what it expects from the ABC, raising fears of political interference in the national broadcaster, under a recommendation of the confidential Lewis review.

And some services now provided for free may attract a user charge as the government looks to rein in costs and clip the ABC's wings.

The Lewis review into the ABC and SBS has recommended the Minister for Communications issue each broadcaster with "a statement of the government's expectations" relating to "financial management and transparency".

A leaked copy, obtained by Fairfax Media, also reveals Peter Lewis identified a number of efficiency measures that have not been taken up by the ABC or SBS, which would be highly controversial with viewers and within the broadcast industry.



These include outsourcing most of the ABC's production, scrapping the retransmission of the ABC and the SBS on Foxtel's cable services (which could have implications for viewers with poor reception), scrapping digital radio and charging for the ABC's iView service.

The proposed "statement of the government's expectations" will fuel suspicions of potential political interference in editorial policy given the Coalition's well documented hostility to the broadcaster's approach.

In February this year, Prime Minister Tony Abbott used a radio interview in Sydney to complain, arguing "a lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone's side but Australia's".

Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the suggestion "really crosses the line, especially with all the 'Team Australia' talk Mr Abbott has engaged in".

As the debate over the ABC's announced cuts continues to cause angst within the Coalition, notably for members from rural areas, Mr Turnbull is expected to release the Lewis report on Monday, when Senate committees hold more hearings.

In his speech announcing a cut of $207 million over four years from the ABC 10 days ago Mr Turnbull made an oblique reference to the controversial proposal. "An interesting insight from the efficiency study was that the ABC and SBS boards would benefit from a clearer understanding of the government's budget priorities and the outcomes that the government is seeking from its annual investment of taxpayers' money," he said

The proposal has been raised privately with the ABC board, which is understood to be strongly opposed to this level of intervention because it fears directions on where cuts should be made would amount to editorial intervention.

The Lewis report acknowledged that "a ministerial statement of expectations would be controversial and could give rise to concerns that the government is intervening in the ABC and SBS for political reasons".

But the report went on to say that such a statement "would assist boards to clearly understand the efficiency and financial outcomes the government is seeking".


The minister already has power under the ABC and SBS Acts to bring policy considerations to the attention of the board. This has mainly been used in relation to industrial relations matters.

The Lewis recommendation appears to contemplate a mechanism where the minister can direct the national broadcaster on a more granular level, including where cuts should be made.

Senator Ludlam said he was mystified by the role of the Nationals in the ABC funding controversy because it was "always obvious" that regional services would be trimmed if cuts were made.

"That's why you have a national broadcaster, so not every decision is made on profit and loss critieria but on social needs also," he said.

Other highlights of the report are:

* A strong preference towards outsourcing programming production. The reason why the ABC spends a much higher proportion of its budget on staff is that it makes a higher proportion of its programming in-house than the commercial networks. The Lewis report found that outsourcing production facilities would save $0.4 million a year and $90 million in capital costs (the cost of studios) but would cost $21.6 million.

* A recommendation that the ABC and SBS get out of digital radio and instead build up streaming on the internet and mobile. This would save $3.8 million a year for the ABC and $2.1 million for SBS, though it would cost $20 million to implement. The move would deeply upset the commercial radio industry, which has made big investments in digital radio and would require legislation.

* Charging for iView. The report suggested this service should be "monetised" by charging after a short period of free access, particularly as its popularity meant the bandwitdth cost would increase rapidly.

* Ceasing retransmission of the ABC and SBS on Foxtel. This would save $6 million a year for the broadcasters, but the ABC is committed until 2017 and SBS warned termination might affect its income earning channel, World movies.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/lewis-report-on-abc-canvasses-role-for-minister-in-directing-how-cuts-be-made-20141128-11w5ja.html

Abbott's rudderless ship won't scrape by

Date November 29, 2014 - 12:15AM
Peter Hartcher

Not even halfway into its term, Team Abbott is replicating some of the failures of its fractious Labor predecessor.

What is a Captain to do with a ship full of barnacles? By Rocco Fazzari and Denis Carnahan with apologies to drunken sailors everywhere.

Tony Abbott chose the word "barnacles" very deliberately. He told his party-room meeting this week that "there are one or two barnacles still on the ship but by Christmas they will have been dealt with".

It was a metaphor John Howard liked to use when it was fixing time for his government.


The supporters of Labor and the Greens may dislike the Abbott government, but it is among the Coalition’s own hinterland of support that despair runs deepest.

But the people who were central to Howard's success do not see the resemblance. "Howard used to talk about knocking off barnacles when 80 per cent of things were good and the 20 per cent needed fixing. This government has 80 per cent wrong," says one.

"It would be a luxury for Abbott to be able to knock off some barnacles. It supposes that he has a ship. This government has no purpose, no sense of direction. The prime minister's office is so busy managing everything they manage nothing. It's Rudd all over again."



Except that rather than the Prime Minister himself being the chokepoint through which every decision must pass, this time it's his chief of staff, Peta Credlin, according to the universal accounts emerging from inside the Abbott government. Credlin has become a proxy target for attacks which otherwise would be directed at Abbott.

Another central figure of the Howard era spontaneously offered the same comparison. "It takes you back to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, doesn't it?" he volunteered at the end of a confused and damaging week for the government.

The supporters of Labor and the Greens may dislike the Abbott government, but it is among the Coalition's own hinterland of support that despair runs deepest. A third stalwart of the Howard experience said that the talk of removing barnacles supposed that some troublesome policies could be scraped off and that the ship would then sail swiftly ahead:

"They can fix some policies, but then you still need your ministers to be good. They can reset their budget strategy, but you still need your treasurer to be good. They've got no idea."

This trio of Howard veterans does not want to be seen to be openly criticising a Coalition government, but other supporters are not so shy. In the last couple of weeks some of the Coalition's most dependable devotees have raised a clamour. Andrew Bolt: "The Abbott government must now change or die." An editorial in The Australian: "Abbott government is doomed without narrative." The Murdoch flagship singled out Credlin for being too dominant. Janet Albrechtsen: "Something has to change." She pointed to today's state election: "Victorians are seriously thinking of throwing out a first-term state government, something that hasn't happened for more than 50 years. It's a potent lesson for the federal Liberals."

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this outpouring of frustration and apprehension is its timing. The Abbott government has been in power for 14 months. It's not even halfway through its three-year term.

The single biggest reason for all the fretting is the polling. The government has been permanently behind since late last year, and the latest Newspoll set off a special panic. Abbott's partisans thought that the G20 summit was a triumph that should have been rewarded with a bounce in the polls. Instead, the Newspoll showed Labor's lead lengthening.

Another reason is that we know worse lies ahead. The task of deficit repair is failing, and that is about to be compounded.

Six months after Joe Hockey delivered the budget, the Senate is refusing to pass budget measures with a collective value of $30 billion over four years. On top of that, iron ore prices have been hit hard and experts estimate that this will cut corporate tax revenue to the Treasury by some $10 billion a year.

The effect of all this will be laid bare in the half-financial year budget update, elegantly known as MYEFO for Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, to be published next month.

Is the rising panic justified? The comparison with the Rudd and Gillard years is particularly striking. In a couple of ways it is apt. First, Abbott has replicated one of Labor's greatest failings, its chronic inability to get the Australian people to support its big reforms. Labor would blurt out dramatic new policies without in any way preparing the public. Without convincing the people of a problem, it would abruptly announce a solution.

The Rudd and Gillard governments routinely failed to explain in any sustained, persuasive way. Their opponents would fill the void, and their policies would fail. So, too, with the Abbott government.

Australia accepted that the new government needed to bring the deficit in check. But instead of just cutting spending and raising revenue, the government produced a highly ideological budget that sought to refashion Australian society.

The budget was an attempt to alter the behaviour of Australians receiving welfare, going to the doctor and studying at university. There is an argument for all three; this government did not even try to make the arguments to the people before announcing the policies. The result was an instant wall of public opposition.

"You have to match the solution to the problem," said one of the Howard veterans. "These guys delivered solutions to problems that the public couldn't see."

Second, the Abbott government has centralised decision-making in the prime minister's office at least as much as Kevin Rudd did. "Nothing is decided in this government without going through Peta," said a minister.

She sets strategy, makes appointments, decides policy and even, according to a minister, "chose the flowers on the tables at the G20". This isn't correct. But Credlin did make decisions about detail including the size of the rooms for the various G20 events and where people would stand.

"She doesn't seem to trust Tony by himself," says a cabinet minister. "She goes to every meeting with him, she attends every function. She seems to worry about what he might do if left to his own devices." Credlin's level of control frustrates many in the government. On these aspects, the Abbott government recalls the belief of some of the native tribes of North America: That a warrior took on the attributes of enemies they killed in battle. The Abbott government seems to be assuming some of the most unimpressive features of the Labor government it defeated.

But the comparison with Rudd and Gillard breaks down on two fundamental characteristics. Labor was notoriously beset by the rivalry between Rudd and Gillard. The destabilisation unleashed by Gillard's strike at Rudd never ended. The Abbott government is a model of stability by comparison.

The other? Abbott's philosophy on his relationship with the electorate. Abbott has never been a popular figure, and he has accepted that. He does not seek to win popularity in the usual craven ways. Instead, he decided at the outset that, if he couldn't be popular, he'd be purposeful. He would seek respect by taking on reforms and pursuing them doggedly and steadily. Rudd and Gillard, by contrast, pursued popularity endlessly and would abandon unpopular policy if it got too hard.

His government has achieved all but one of its election-slogan promises. He promised to stop the boats. Tick. To get rid of the carbon tax. Tick. To get rid of the mining tax. Tick. To end the waste and pay back the debt. This, of course, is the one that is, if anything, further from delivery than ever.

And there have been other achievements. Three trade agreements with Australia's three biggest export markets, for instance. A broadly successful foreign policy that is advancing Australia's interests with all the major powers simultaneously.

As for Credlin, the criticism of her ability to make strategy overlooks an important fact. It was the same woman who drew up Abbott's strategy in opposition. The same strategy that panicked Rudd into abandoning his core promise on climate change, the same strategy that stampeded Labor into toppling Rudd, the same strategy that almost brought Labor down in 2010 and did bring Labor down in 2013. The perception in the prime minister's office is that a panicking party has forgotten who put it into power.

But none of this impresses the Howard veterans. One of the mainstays of Howard's long success says that Abbott and Credlin are making a basic error – they have a checklist of accomplishments and they mistake this for a strategy.

"The first requirement of a government is that it gives the electorate confidence. This government is undermining economic confidence. And on terrorism and national security it has made people more anxious than ever. Where's the strategy to generate confidence?"

And Abbott's underlying philosophy of steadfastly earning respect through strong and dogged leadership? "That was Paul Keating's election strategy in 1996. 'Yes Paul, you're a strong leader, but we hate you and the economy is a mess, goodbye!' Good luck with that."

It's certainly true that there is no sign of any emerging public respect. Indeed, there is evidence that the public is as depressed about the state of politics now as it was under the political behaviours that took hold from 2010 under Labor.

Abbott took the opposition leadership at the end of 2009. It was in 2010 that his hyperoppositionism panicked Labor, that Rudd broke his climate change promise, that Gillard tore him down, that the election ended in a hung parliament. "We entered a different phase in late 2010 and 2011" according to the polling evidence, says the analyst and former Fairfax pollster John Stirton.

"It's a phase of protracted unpopularity of leaders,"where the combined approval rating of both prime minister and opposition leader is negative. "It started late 2010 and we're still in it." The last time this happened was in the Keating years when he faced Alexander Downer and John Hewson.

"There is a continuity since 2010. With the exception of the briefest period in late last year when Abbott was elected promising grown-up government, the government of the day has been behind in the polls, regardless of which government it is," says Stirton. "It seems to reflect continuous disenchantment with politics and way it's played."

Australia craves a new way of politics. No amount of barnacle scraping will achieve that.

Peter Hartcher is the political editor.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbotts-rudderless-ship-wont-scrape-by-20141128-11weip.html

So the Liberal's review wants to cut an enterprise by the SBS that actually makes money? How hypocritical can you get?

That's the smoking gun showing that this attack is ideologically driven if ever there was one.

^ but that's not a broken promise . But if it was labour , the media will have a field day

c'mon Joffa...at least use some credible sources.....](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

You mean like Alan Jones , Andrew bolt and that Australian columnists who also are also calling abott out as well. You know when you're in trouble when your biggest fan boys are calling you out for not staying on message

For all of you voting today...