Wilkinson's sex and interest group' bias

Comments on Cassandra Wilkinson "If Rudd is Pepsi, can we have a Coke?", 18/02/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/if-rudd-is-pepsi-can-we-have-a-coke/comments-e6frgd0x-1226579832152

Cassandra, with due respect, your view and analysis is nonsense, inconsistent, contradictory and sex discrimination. It is a shame even more given that you are the same side of the sex claiming victims.

It would have had a little appeal if this piece was coming from the opposite side.

You said Rudd Prime Ministership is a case that "it's already been tried, tested and rejected." But what about Gillard's? Relatively speaking, whose is worse or better?

Your illogical reasoning and analysis reflects how poor your analytical skills and how poor your judgement is.

Yes, we all watched on TV that Rudd didn't treat nicely the NSW previous premier who's female and your boss since you worked as an advisor to her.

But one should get over that given that changed politics since.

Gillard let many people down

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Leadership tensions turn poisonous”, 16/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/leadership-tensions-turn-poisonous/story-e6frg75f-1226223363282

While Rudd had his shortcomings during his prime ministership, Gillard has shown a remarkable lack of strategic leadership skills and sound judgement.
At the time when Gillard got the prime ministership from Rudd, many were hoping that she would continue her good standing that had been observed before that time.
And there were enormous good wishes from many people for the first female prime minister good and well.
So far, those people have been hugely disappointed by her dismal performance.
Gillard has let so many good wishing people down.

Gillard failed on border protection and leadership

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/a-government-that-cant-protect-borders-will-fall/story-e6frgd0x-1226170055989
Paul, you have really missed the most important point when you say the following: "These events reveal a failure of Australia's system of government. One of the cardinal responsibilities of any Australian government is to protect the borders, and every PM since
Federation has been a border protectionist.
That responsibility has now been compromised, and the consequences will be severe. Gillard can be rightly accused of poor tactics, but her offshore policy has been destroyed by forces beyond her control -- the High Court, Abbott and the Greens."

And that is, the prime minister has lacked the political leadership skills required to lead on difficult issues and in difficult times.

If she can boast the pass of the carbon tax legislations, she should have the courage to confront her own shortcomings and work on it.

That is the key to her problems.

The piece by Niki Savva yesterday on the prime minister, though a bit harsh, had nevertheless some excellent points.

PS: Whichever political persuade is in government it is its duty and responsibility to govern and to protect the border.

If it can't do it beyond its own ability, it should seek a fresh mandate from the voters.

That is the simplest way of the current Australian government system.

If and when Attott is the leader of government, if and when he can't get its own border protection policy, he clear should call a double resolution of parliament and get a fresh mandate. He should be expected to do so if and when it becomes necessary.

Gillard and Rudd

12/10/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/poll-brings-julia-gillards-troubles-to-the-boil/story-e6frgd0x-1226164291828
It may or may not be too late for the federal ALP government's turn of fortune if it changed leadership in a bloodless and smooth transition from Gillard to Rudd.

Rudd has the experience to defeat the most skilful political opponent in the last decade and a half, that is the former prime minister John Howard, and rally the public, no matter it was
false appearance or not.

Abbott, while often underestimated by many for his powerful political leadership skills, may not be as effective as he has been to undermine Gillard's prime ministerial leadership, even though Rudd was deposed shortly after Abbott became the opposition leader. Rudd's demise from the previous prime ministership was his own unfortunate political skills towards his own caucus colleagues, and nothing more than that.

He should have learnt enough from the last political episodes, including the key shortcomings and failures such as overpitch of the climate change issues and his back away from the ETS after those kitchen cabinet colleagues advised him to do so, as well as his unfortunate role in the RSPT and his ill treatment of his colleagues.

He may be still revengeful, but he will be much more skilful next time.

And that is the hope the federal ALP can get if they act to ensure the leadership change is seen as natural and smooth and not as treacherous and bloody.

They will realise that and take necessary actions, no matter how painful they may be for some of them, especially those who played key roles in the removal of Rudd the last time. Self interest will dictate their actions, or rather inaction to oppose such a change in
leadership from the current one to Rudd.

I’d bet that is more likely than not to happen.

It would be interesting to see if the coalition will also need to change should Rudd become the prime minister again.

It's time for Gillard to face the inevitable and be graceful

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Even Victorian faithful think Labor is on the nose”, 27/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/even-victorian-faithful-think-labor-is-on-the-nose/story-e6frgd0x-1226147314109

The problem for Labor is that the longer Gillard hangs on the more unpopular it gets and the bigger its electoral loss in the next election.

Gillard should swallow her personal ego and be wise enough to accept and acknowledge her problem is unsolvable and pass the leadership to another person, presumably the one who has the best chance to win the next election. She would serve the ALP and herself a big favour if she did just that, the sooner the better.

An voluntary and orderly change in the ALP leadership would be the best for ALP, certainly much better than another leadership change forced by its parliamentary caucus.

Now it appears that that person may be Rudd or Smith. Neither of them may guarantee an election victory, but either of them is infinitely more electable than the current one, if the polls are a rough guide.

Is Rudd good enough?

Comments on Niki Savva “Kevin Rudd a golden opportunity for Labor”, 27/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/rudd-a-golden-opportunity-for-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226147266953

There are two potential problems for Rudd should he be returned to the Prime Ministership.

Firstly, whether he has changed enough to get the ALP federal caucus on his side and united in governing. He may have learnt his lessons from his lost of that leadership, but it is unclear whether his own character has afforded him enough self reflection.

Secondly, the three problems Gillard said would be hers priority to fix, namely mining tax, border protection/boat arrivals and climate change, are likely to continue to hunt Rudd, even though he may choose new strategies by saying that he would seek mandate on them from an election.

Yes, the gambling/poker machine issue may not be a serious one for him.

However, when an election is on, voters may get serious on Rudd and change attitude from a honey moon period one towards Rudd. The question is whether the sympathy toward him for his treatment by the ALP federal caucus would be enough to warrant them to vote him back into prime minister.

That would be an interesting question to be seen.

Rudd may do a better job this time

Comments on Paul Kelly “It's not just the leaders, it's the party”, 7/09/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/its-not-just-the-leaders-its-the-party/story-e6frgd0x-1226130893027

While the core point Paul Kelly has made that the ALP needs to reflect and change is obviously correct, his argument that a change in leadership does not do the job may not be so correct.

A change in leadership, say back to Rudd, can work if the new leader is determined to change and can bring about that change. Otherwise, a mere change in leadership will not work, as Paul has put it elegantly.

Rudd, if he has learnt the lessons why and how he lost the leadership, is the best person to do just that. He has the quality to bring the public with him and be popular with the voters, although what he would really also need to do is to add real substance to policy and achieve hard results.

With that quality, he would be in a position to push changes of the ALP culture. Of course he would need to work collegiately with the caucus colleagues to achieve it.

Many of Government's problems are largely Swan's

Comments on Paul Kelly “Labor turns the boom into a crisis”, 24/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-turns-the-boom-into-a-crisis/story-e6frg6zo-1226120742007

Yes, it is the government's misjudgement and mismanagement that exacerbate the current manufacturing problems. However, I would attribute the bulk of the government's problems to the Treasurer Mr Swan.

Many of the government's problems are economic problems that are inherently Treasurer's main responsibility.
Rudd's mining tax problem, and the corporate tax relief problem and Gillard's carbon tax problem, they can all be related to Swan's poor judgements and poor management of economic policies.

Needless to say, Swan played a very poor role in Rudd's disposal.

A struggling government unlikely to survive

Comments on Ben Packham and James Massola “Julia Gillard links carbon price to a 'bright future' for manufacturing”, 23/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/steel-push-to-secure-local-jobs-as-julia-gillard-resists-protectionism/comments-fn59niix-1226120243132

What Gillard said might work in the very long run, but she and her government have not demonstrated how to make up for short to medium runs of their strategy to work.

The problem is that the short to medium runs are crucial for the nation and for a government, particularly so when it has been struggling enormously already.

Inevitably Gillard and her government are going to fail in designing a workable strategy and a set of policies to survive long enough of the short to medium runs.

Her alliance with the Greens means it is impossible for her to be flexible enough on the carbon tax to make it work effectively and to the best of our national interests.

Gillard has also swung the IR system too much into the area of inflexibility.

The political need for her government to show it is able to produce a budget surplus means there will not enough investment in productivity and critical infrastructure, especially in the context of the huge investment used for the NBN.

Low productivity growth will make impossible to deal with the adverse impact of the mining boom on most other sectors effectively.

Unfortunately for her, Australians on longer have any patience with Gillard and her government. And that will be fatal for her government.

It is political impossibility. What she is saying is likely to be perceived as stubbornness and silly political rhetoric of a person out of touch and with ignorance.

The carbon tax and governance

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Credibility joins carbon crusade”, 17/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/credibility-joins-carbon-crusade/story-e6frgd0x-1226116270286

The government would sound more credible if it hasn't used the carbon tax as a way for wealth/income redistribution as it has proposed in its carbon tax package, and it got a border carbon adjustment to not distort and reduce Australians' comparative advantage in trade of goods and services with other nations.

These fatal shortcomings of the government's carbon tax bill are related to ALP Robin Hood ideology and its cowardice to confront other powerful nations in terms of equal treatment.

Of course, the compensations for businesses should not be as generous to recognise that businesses can pass the higher costs due to carbon tax either fully or at least partially as they are proposed in the bill, and more compensations should be for households on an equal per capita basis to remove the income distribution effects.

Further, it is hard to understand why it will be necessary to move from a carbon tax system to an ETS, given that the former is more efficient and involves fewer transaction costs. Of course, some financial market participants would like to have an ETS for the addition financial opportunities created by that to benefit from it. Further, bureaucrats would like it to create more government jobs and powers for them.

Taken together, it shows the government is incompetent, out of date and out of touch. This is another reason that it would be better for the government to seek a mandate for its carbon tax and ETS at an election. I should say I am not politically biased and is not pro or against any of the major political parties and I just would like to see fairness in politics and in governance.

Scared they've been on the run

Comments on Dennis Shanahan "erils for PM in hanging on to surplus", 12/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/perils-for-pm-in-hanging-on-to-surplus/story-e6frgd0x-1226113362948
Gillard and Swan and their government has been particularly stubbon in promoting the budget surplus line of argument, so much so that they have greatly damaged their images and lost touch with the public. the flood levy, for example, was completely unnecessary, especially in the context that they had also pledged a carbon tax to come and the public were uncertain and concerned about the impact of the carbon tax in the coming years. Consumer confidence as well as business confidence have further eroded by the persistence of the surplus pledge at the expense of prudent economic and budget management.
Of course, Gillard and her coleagues have been aware of their broken promises, particularly the one on carbon tax, and the potential damage of further broken promises. But one has to weigh the benefits and costs of each policy and the totality of all policies and make the best choices and choose the lesser evils.
Unfortunately, Gillard and her colleagues have been scared and have not been able to show they are able to do the best and right things. they have tended to make policy on the run and rush to announcements without fully consider ttheir effects, for the nation and for themselves.

What all these show that Gillard and her colleagues in government have been unable to show true leadership. And that is not good particuarly for Gillard.

PS: see also: Alan Kohler "A surplus of political stupidity", 12/08/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-budget-Julia-Gillard-economic-crisis-ma-pd20110812-KMSTR?OpenDocument&src=rot.

Chris Evans empty claims

Comments on Chris Evans “Industry backs our skills plan”, 16/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/industry-backs-our-skills-plan/story-fn8gf1nz-1226056357593

Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.

One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:

1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases

2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services

Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.

However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.

Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.

So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.

Australia is undoubtedly a lucky country

Comments on Mumble blog “Australia’s miracle economy: fact or fiction?”, 16/05/2011, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/australias_miracle_economy_fact_or_fiction/

While the points could be regarded as well made, it would be more helpful to or clearer to readers if a table showing period averages for the three countries were presented.

Secondly, while worldwide forces affect many countries, the charts, particularly the budget balance one, do show that Australia has been lucky due to the mining boom, so has been Canada. Improved and higher terms of trade helped to achieve better budget outcomes in both countries.

Thirdly, the chart with employment shows Australia benefited more than Canada, due to labour shortage as a result of the mining boom.

In contrast, Britain has not got this luck. And it is still struggling in the wake of the GFC, while we Australians are riding on another mining boom as commodity prices rise through the roof again and even higher!

Government tactics - clever, coward or irresponsible?

Comments on Julie Novak “What happened to the meat axe?” 12/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/what-happened-to-the-meat-axe/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054249543

While all the arguments may be true, the government is skilful in trimming the APS by increasing the efficiency dividend.

So I would add some cautions to the post, even though I agree that the government created a false impression in the first place.

What the government is doing is to force or let the agency heads to do the nasty part of reducing employment in their own individual agencies without the government saying it is reducing APS jobs. It is clever politics, although it will damage and hurt some agencies more than other due to different conditions they have and whether they really have fats left or they are already being left with bones. So some may say it is lack of courage to do the right thing in the right way by a government.

The numbers of likely changes in some areas cannot show the dark side of some agencies that will have to reduce its staff numbers due to much slower than inflation increase in funding as a result of the increased efficiency dividend requirement.

Further, arguably, the increase in the pay in the APS over the last few years may not have match the increases in the private sector, even though there have been skill shortages from time to time across Australia.

Gillard government is wasting taxpayer's money again - the set-top box program

Comments on Joe Kelly “PM defends 'quality' digital set-top box scheme for pensioners”, 12/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/julia-gillard-defends-war-on-middle-class-welfare-in-budget/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054548578


Gillard is defending the indefensible: "Defending the value of the $350 per box scheme, the Prime Minster said the cost included installation, a lesson on how to use the technology and a 12-month support package.

The opposition has likened the scheme to the government's ill-fated insulation scheme, saying set-top boxes can be bought at electrical retailers for as little as $40."

The set-top box program by the government clear is not value for money and will never be.

This is not only common sense, but also back up by business people: "Retailer Gerry Harvey slammed the scheme as overpriced, saying he could sell the boxes and install them at far lower prices."

Gillard, its cabinet ministers especially those who have responsibilities for spending control and in the area of communication and businesses, should have some common sense back, get into the real world, and be responsible for taxpayer's money.

That program shows gross irresponsibility and is bordered on neglecting their duties to the taxpayers.

Clearly, they have not learned enough or at all from the government's disastrous home insulation program debacle. That was not too long ago and the memory should be still very fresh indeed.

PS: It should be interesting to know what government advicers have advised and recommended on this program, in terms of $350 per box. Freedom of information should allow one to access that information.

Gillard better than Swan on some details

Comments on Joe Kelly and James Massola “Wayne Swan can't say which year Labor achieved its last surplus”, 12/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/julia-gillard-defends-war-on-middle-class-welfare-in-budget/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054476115

Prime Minister Gillard has done some home work and was prepared for the issue of when ALP government last had a budget surplus, obviously much better than her Treasurer had been.

The PM should be commended for that and by implication Swan needs to improve a lot in this area, not the least to avoid breaking a glass with water spilling over a table of paper.

Having said that, I'd like to raise two points.

Firstly, while it is politicians' tradition to portray their political opponents as no policy detail and no substance in arguments, it should be noted that it is the government not the opposition that is responsible for government budget, with the supports of the full machinery of the APS. So demanding for the opposition leader to come up with details of an alternative budget should they question the government's budget is not the correct approach by a prime minister.

Secondly, the superficial figures of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP are only part of the story of whether a government is high or low tax one. There are other relevant issues, like how the tax revenue is spent, transferred or saved, and etc.

For example, a government may actually be a low taxing government even the proportion is X percentage points higher for a government in a year if it returns an amount of revenue more than X percentage points of GDP to the taxpayer, than an alternative scenario, and vice versa. The same thing can be said if government saves part of the revenue in a fund or pays off debts.

Further, arguably, a particular year’s government revenue can be affected by many factors, such as a sudden economic boom or improvement in compliance and enforcement, and etc.

In another word, it is government spending that is a better indicator of a government size.

On that account, ALP government generally perform poorly, especially if its larger spending was also related wastage.

Irresponsibility and incompetence of a government

Comments on “The budget that got away”, see Mumble Blog, 10/05/2011 on the day of federal budget, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/tough_budget/

It is hard to understand why we have to had such levels of deficits, to the tune of $51 billion this financial year and $20 billion next financial year, given that, first we didn't experience a recession, second we have very good terms of trade and external demand for our commodities is extremely high, third, we have unemployment rates at or below 5%.

Yes, Rudd/Gillard/Swan didn't have the guts to reduce government expenditure in their first budget and used the GFC as an excuse to ramp up their own spending and wastage.

More ironically and or hypocritically, they didn't dare to stop the tax cuts that Howard/Costello introduced and continued to the Rudd years. Although that may not necessarily have been a bad thing compared to their wastage, they nevertheless blame Howard/Costello for causing the so called structural budget deficits.

The fact is that Howard/Costello had budget surplus, repaid government debts and created future fund, as well as cut taxes.

What Rudd/Gillard/Swan has done? Deficits and large deficits, debts and increased debts. Wait, there are more, new taxes and more new and big taxes.

For them to blame their predecessors is a bit too rich in politics and political incompetence and spin at the extreme!

It is a shame of them. But they don’t have a sense of shame and they don’t and can’t feel it.

That is a government out of touch, and senseless!

Gillard is "refelcting the power of education for better life"!

Comments on Julia Gillard “Reflecting the power of education for better life”, 9/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/reflecting-the-power-of-education-for-better-life/story-fn59niix-1226052142343

Gillard says "TOMORROW Australians will see the first budget of the government I am proud to lead.

It is a budget right for our times and a budget that reflects my beliefs in the transformative power of education, the benefits and dignity of work and the need for us to treat one another with respect."

And “This budget will move us back into the black. It is about getting our economic settings right as Australia moves from the lingering effects of the global financial crisis to the economic expansion we know is coming as the massive mining investment boom comes on stream.”

We've heard many similar statements from Gillard, such as they have got the balance right, this right, that right and so on.

But how many things have gone wrong under Rudd/Gillard and Gillard governments?

Few if any independent minded people in Australia would believe these sorts of statements from creditability seriously damaged prime minister.

Where is the statement "there will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead" a few short days before the last election?

We need a prime minister who is honest, not someone who lusts for personal power and prestige at the expense of the nation and would pursue it by any means.

But let me be more seriously picking some points from her post.

Firstly, Gillard argues that “We will rebuild large parts of our nation following devastating floods across our eastern states and Western Australia and Cyclone Yasi, which followed shortly after.

Finding the money to meet this urgent national priority has added budget pressure at a time of reduced revenue. But in the long term, we face a whole new set of challenges as the mining investment boom is unleashed with all the price pressures that come with it.”

Why does a prime minister of a country blessed with a mining boom talks about it as “face a whole new set of challenges”?

It is beyond belief to talk down such a good fortune, isn’t it? Doesn’t indicate some sort of hopelessness of a leader unable to handle even good fortunes, not to mention any real and true challenges?

Secondly, she talks about: “As the economy gathers strength and moves to full capacity, it is vital we return the budget to surplus and do not add to inflationary pressures. This budget will honour this commitment to return to surplus in 2012-13.

This is the right economic strategy and the right thing to do by families facing cost-of-living pressures. As a government we are determined to make the right choices to restrain spending, deliver a surplus and not exacerbate those inflationary pressures.”

Has her government really tried hard enough in reducing inflationary pressure? For example, why couldn’t the government find more savings instead of imposing a flood levy that will inevitably further increase the pressure of “families facing cost-of-living pressures”? She gracefully ditched some wasteful government programs such as the cash for clunkers program. Surely there are more wasteful government programs that could have been stopped. But she didn’t and the government she proudly leads didn’t.

She was the minister and the deputy prime minister who was responsible for the already reported huge BER wastes.

She has been the prime minister who could make her government mush less wasteful.

The problem is that she is addicted to government largess and she is one of the sources of government wastage.

Gillard talks about: “In government you don't have the luxury of simply opposing everything as we see from the opposition. Governments must sit around the cabinet table and decide which program is more deserving and which services are more worthy than others. Inevitably these choices require us to make tough and unpopular decisions as we place some priorities before others.”

The outcomes of her government and the Rudd/Gillard one have shown that either the government was or has been seriously incompetent in deciding “which program is more deserving and which services are more worthy than others”, or she is talking about nonsense to spin around and around and around!

The cash for clunkers was her announcement in the first place, but later on was ditched as a poor idea (and presumably a non-deserving one). The people’s assembly for consensus on climate change and on carbon price was her announcement (and not to forget that she solemnly declared a few days before the last election there will be no carbon tax under the government she leads), and was replaced with her climate change committee to introduce a carbon tax after all.


Did she get the priority right? More deserving versus less deserving right? Even where to draw the line for cut off of which to fund and which not to fund right? Or anything right at all, one has to doubt?

A win or a loss?

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “A win, but move smacks of rush for solution at any cost”, 9/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/a-win-but-move-smacks-of-rush-for-solution-at-any-cost/story-fn59niix-1226052150739

Was that a win? Get 4000 refugees to here and move 800 in processing to Malaysia from Australia?

If that was a solution, there will be more in future in Malaysia waiting to come to Australia, not by boats, but by planes.

Was that a secure border?

Let’s not aim at having the lowest denominate for policy standard in policy and congratulate and reward the poorest solutions.

Ending government wastage

Comments on Henry Ergas “Ending waste even more important than deficit”, 9/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ending-waste-even-more-important-than-deficit/story-fn59niix-1226052136291

Ergas is obviously correct in stating that ending wastes is more important than ending deficits.

Both are required in general, although the general theory and practice for budget balance is over a reasonable timeframe to achieve.

Most western government, due largely short term politics and irresponsible fiscal policy have abused the general policy prescription and resulted in rather large government debts and persistent budget deficits.

Government wastes should by all means be avoided in the first place and eliminated when they are discovered, even though some would argue that they are impossible to completely avoid in the first place no matter how hard a government may try to do it.

Here the short term politics comes to play. Few governments if any are selflessly working in the interests of their whole nations and virtually all governments have their own political interests that are not necessarily always the same as their national interests.

When the two conflict with each other, many government can pursue their own political interests but do it in the disguise of the national interests, or they say are in the national interests.

Australia has some good examples of government wastes recently – the bungled home insulation programs, the wastes in BER programs, and the NBN is most likely to be a much larger measure of government wastage.

The government, however, have all its reasons. And that is hardly surprising, isn’t it?

In terms of budget deficits, if the benefits to the government of the day outweigh the costs to it, then it is not too difficult to understand the incentive to have it.