Comments on Michelle Grattan "Bronwyn Bishop finally resigns as speaker", 2/08/2015
It is disappointing to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal John Conde included in the review panel as the co-head, along side with former head of the Finance department David Tune.
The Remuneration Tribunal has long lost its creditability due to its granting of extremely generous salary increases to Australian politicians in the past when the government in both main political persuasion did not allow the increase in the wages and salaries of APS employees to allow for inflation, and ask them to demonstrate productivity improvement.
As a result, to have the head of that tribunal to review the extraordinary costs of politicians's entitlements, about half of billion dollars as reported recently is a bit of joke, given the tribunal's role in the proliferations of politicians remunerations.
It is a crude joke to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as the co-chair to conduct such a review. The Remuneration Tribunal and the politicians seem to have extraordinarily conflict of interests.
Perhaps there should be a review of the Remuneration Tribunal actions in the past in the context of the wages and salaries of APS employees.
I have no knowledge how members of that tribunal are appointed, but they seemed to act out of steps with the Australian community in general.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
2015-08-02
2013-05-10
The ACT should adopt a new model of governing structure and model
Comments on Peter Jean "Assembly expansion plan hits a wall", 10/05/2013, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/assembly-expansion-plan-hits-a-wall-20130509-2jb4k.html
The ACT, as a small and compact city, should not simply follow the model of other state jurisdictions in administration. ACT government and the Legislation Assembly should think creatively and consider the most efficient and effective administration style and model to suit such a small city state/territory.
I would argue that one way is for the ACT to have a default or fallback position to use laws and policies in the NSW, and only to have a different one if there is a two third majority in both the assembly and the general ACT population. After all, the ACT is within NSW and a part of Australia and one would not expect there are so many different situations between it and NSW, apart from the ACT virtually does not have rural, agriculture, mining and is much simpler to administrate.
The ACT, as a small and compact city, should not simply follow the model of other state jurisdictions in administration. ACT government and the Legislation Assembly should think creatively and consider the most efficient and effective administration style and model to suit such a small city state/territory.
I would argue that one way is for the ACT to have a default or fallback position to use laws and policies in the NSW, and only to have a different one if there is a two third majority in both the assembly and the general ACT population. After all, the ACT is within NSW and a part of Australia and one would not expect there are so many different situations between it and NSW, apart from the ACT virtually does not have rural, agriculture, mining and is much simpler to administrate.
This means there would only be a need for front line services as opposed to duplication of unnecessarily so many central administrative agencies/politicians/bureaucrats staff for policy and central administration. The ACT government should effectively, largely and essentially be a city administration like a small council.
The two main sides of politics and the Greens should have the welfare of the ACT residents in mind and should endeavor to be more efficient in administration of the ACT affairs. It is not too dissimilar to the differences in business administration and management between large and small businesses.
In that context, the idea of further expansion reflects very poorly on the creativity of those proponents of such an bad idea.
2012-12-06
Government must have a budget constraint
Comments on David Uren "No doubt about it, taxes will have to rise", 6/12/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/no-doubt-about-it-taxes-will-have-to-rise/story-e6frg9qo-1226530770321
I think government should establish a law similar to the California's but with a in-build flexibility, that is, to set a maximum percentage of all revenue to GDP, say 30%.
The current political landscape is unfair, with the ALP increasing spending and the size of government with no limit, while when the opposite political party is in government they reduce spending reduce debts.
It will be a fair game for political parties to have a hard budget constraint and it should be the same for both political sides.
If any party wants to go over that limit, it needs a referendum. If any party break the rules, the ministers and the caucus must pay from their own income and assets.
Only in that way, will political parties focus on creativity and innovation in policy to generate the maximum benefit to the nation for the given constraint.
Working families have to live within their means. Government should also live within its means. AND its means should only be a proportion of the size of the economy.
I think government should establish a law similar to the California's but with a in-build flexibility, that is, to set a maximum percentage of all revenue to GDP, say 30%.
The current political landscape is unfair, with the ALP increasing spending and the size of government with no limit, while when the opposite political party is in government they reduce spending reduce debts.
It will be a fair game for political parties to have a hard budget constraint and it should be the same for both political sides.
If any party wants to go over that limit, it needs a referendum. If any party break the rules, the ministers and the caucus must pay from their own income and assets.
Only in that way, will political parties focus on creativity and innovation in policy to generate the maximum benefit to the nation for the given constraint.
Working families have to live within their means. Government should also live within its means. AND its means should only be a proportion of the size of the economy.
2011-08-23
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.
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.
2011-08-17
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.
2011-05-10
Way of efficiency cuts means lazy government and central agencies
Comments on Rob Burgess “Labor's efficiency cuts may backfire”, 10/05/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/federal-budget-Labor-Wayne-Swan-Julia-Gillard-poll-pd20110510-GPRZN?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
The efficiency dividend policy has been a clever disguise of the government and top central bureaucratic agencies of their own incompetency and managing the budget and the public services.
It cuts the budgets of all agencies indiscriminately, so inevitably it will cause unnecessarily the decline of the much needed good services and that is an unnecessary price that all Australians are ended up in having to pay.
The other side of the problem is that it still leaves some wastage unaffected by much.
The government, assisted by the central agencies, should be able to identify where savings should be made and they should not to deliver better and improved outcomes and to be accountable to the taxpayers in terms of value for money!
Instead, they are lazy, and adopt this shamble and irresponsible policy of milking indiscriminately efficiency dividend of every agency.
The public is left bewildered on what the central agencies are doing as well.
2011-04-29
Australian federal relation issues
Comments on Rob Burgess “What's behind Gillard's new waste line?” 29/04/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Labor-BER-spending-bill-funding-pd20110429-GCSU7?OpenDocument&src=sph
You may be right in saying "the disastrous home insulation scheme with the much less disastrous Building the Education Revolution scheme", but in dollar terms, the much less disastrous Building the Education Revolution scheme may be higher in total in terms of wastage.
Even leaving the normal and conventional definition of wastes aside, the effectiveness of many of those school halls to the so called "building the education revolution" is highly questionable - another form of effective wastage.
That is the first point.
The two indiscretions the Gillard government is committing reflect the long term trend and very unhealthy development in federal relations, that is, the federal government has been invading into states constitutional powers. The fed has been bullying and abusing the states on various matters.
That has not been helped by a pro-fed high court that has often sided with the fed on a number of federation relation issues.
Unfortunately, many Australians falsely and naively believe that many of the current problems with state government services can be resolved by further centralisation of government power to Canberra. It is illogical to think that a central government can do a better job where eight duly elected state governments have had difficulties to achieve.
That is a fantasy, especially after the huge wastage that the fed government did in the not so distant past and that government is still in government after the last federal election!
You may be right in saying "the disastrous home insulation scheme with the much less disastrous Building the Education Revolution scheme", but in dollar terms, the much less disastrous Building the Education Revolution scheme may be higher in total in terms of wastage.
Even leaving the normal and conventional definition of wastes aside, the effectiveness of many of those school halls to the so called "building the education revolution" is highly questionable - another form of effective wastage.
That is the first point.
The two indiscretions the Gillard government is committing reflect the long term trend and very unhealthy development in federal relations, that is, the federal government has been invading into states constitutional powers. The fed has been bullying and abusing the states on various matters.
That has not been helped by a pro-fed high court that has often sided with the fed on a number of federation relation issues.
Unfortunately, many Australians falsely and naively believe that many of the current problems with state government services can be resolved by further centralisation of government power to Canberra. It is illogical to think that a central government can do a better job where eight duly elected state governments have had difficulties to achieve.
That is a fantasy, especially after the huge wastage that the fed government did in the not so distant past and that government is still in government after the last federal election!
2011-03-04
Reforming the Australian election system
Comments on Kenneth Wiltshire “Early election the only way out”, 4/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/early-election-the-only-way-out/story-e6frg6zo-1226015579768
I think it is time to consider reforms of the election system to do away with preference allocation and simply accept the election of the most votes.
Smaller parties will not be funded by the same degree by larger parties by taxpayers to avoid excessive fragmentation.
Minority government has to work hard to win both the voters as well as the minority parties for policy and governance.
In that way, the responsibility is clear.
If minority government can't pass legislations, then it is business as usual to continue, as opposed to distorted policies.
I think it is time to consider reforms of the election system to do away with preference allocation and simply accept the election of the most votes.
Smaller parties will not be funded by the same degree by larger parties by taxpayers to avoid excessive fragmentation.
Minority government has to work hard to win both the voters as well as the minority parties for policy and governance.
In that way, the responsibility is clear.
If minority government can't pass legislations, then it is business as usual to continue, as opposed to distorted policies.
2011-02-07
Only the title of Cohen's article is correct and at half at best
Comments on Barry Cohen “All Australians are entitled to be insured against natural disasters”, 7/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/all-australians-are-entitled-to-be-insured-against-natural-disasters/story-fn59niix-1226001071520
While your idea of government help on insurance may attract some applauds, it will in fact make the matter worse and will result in more losses of lives and properties.
With government assistance on insurances, people may falsely think that they will be safer and may take less responsibility to take the most appropriate measure to mitigate risks to natural events.
Government must learn lessons from those natural disasters. But there is the right way and wrong way to lean them.
Government should never encourage people to take unnecessary risks and should never create moral hazard problems for the public and taxpayers.
Instead, it should provide sufficiently the required and appropriate information for residents to make the correct decisions as to where to live, to buy and/or build their properties and bear the consequences of their own decisions.
Further, your idea that the costs of some government or local councils decisions or mistakes should be shared by all taxpayers is grossly unfair to those governments or councils that have done the right thing and those people who have avoided to take those risks, or insured by themselves out of their own pockets.
While your idea of government help on insurance may attract some applauds, it will in fact make the matter worse and will result in more losses of lives and properties.
With government assistance on insurances, people may falsely think that they will be safer and may take less responsibility to take the most appropriate measure to mitigate risks to natural events.
Government must learn lessons from those natural disasters. But there is the right way and wrong way to lean them.
Government should never encourage people to take unnecessary risks and should never create moral hazard problems for the public and taxpayers.
Instead, it should provide sufficiently the required and appropriate information for residents to make the correct decisions as to where to live, to buy and/or build their properties and bear the consequences of their own decisions.
Further, your idea that the costs of some government or local councils decisions or mistakes should be shared by all taxpayers is grossly unfair to those governments or councils that have done the right thing and those people who have avoided to take those risks, or insured by themselves out of their own pockets.
2011-02-02
Another example of poor analysis by commentators
Comments on Ross Gittins “Floods expose national loss of loyalty and respect for leaders”, 2/02/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/floods-expose-national-loss-of-loyalty-and-respect-for-leaders-20110201-1acbw.html?posted=successful
This is another piece of commentators' poor analysis, similar to that by Peter Hartcher today.
It is so shallow!
Why don't mention the very high ratings of Rudd, before he fell on his own sword?
He, as the national leader of the time, had a lot of national loyalty and respect.
Why Gillard does not have the similar degree of national loyalty and respect?
You should clearly ask her for the reasons and answers, though hers, similar to yours, may not necessarily be accepted by the public.
Loyalty and respect are two way street – both the leaders themselves and the public. If a person does not demonstrate he or she should be given loyalty and respect, why do they deserve them?
Clearly, Gillard so far has not demonstrated that effect yet. What she has done is the contrary.
The flood levy has shown a poor leader cared for only her government or unable to move out of her incompetent political colleagues in terms of policies and strategies.
Maybe it also reflects her deep classical approach to income distribution and her desire to hit the rich and the not so rich! If that is true, it would be more dangerous and would drag Australia backwards many decades.
It is simply and absolutely no need for such a levy at this time.
To institute such a poor levy, and shamelessly arguing that at booming times needing budget surpluses is so hypocritical!
This is another piece of commentators' poor analysis, similar to that by Peter Hartcher today.
It is so shallow!
Why don't mention the very high ratings of Rudd, before he fell on his own sword?
He, as the national leader of the time, had a lot of national loyalty and respect.
Why Gillard does not have the similar degree of national loyalty and respect?
You should clearly ask her for the reasons and answers, though hers, similar to yours, may not necessarily be accepted by the public.
Loyalty and respect are two way street – both the leaders themselves and the public. If a person does not demonstrate he or she should be given loyalty and respect, why do they deserve them?
Clearly, Gillard so far has not demonstrated that effect yet. What she has done is the contrary.
The flood levy has shown a poor leader cared for only her government or unable to move out of her incompetent political colleagues in terms of policies and strategies.
Maybe it also reflects her deep classical approach to income distribution and her desire to hit the rich and the not so rich! If that is true, it would be more dangerous and would drag Australia backwards many decades.
It is simply and absolutely no need for such a levy at this time.
To institute such a poor levy, and shamelessly arguing that at booming times needing budget surpluses is so hypocritical!
Not all government reforms are good for the nation!
Comments on Peter Hartcher “Give us $52m, and we will decide who runs the country”, 2/02/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/give-us-52m-and-we-will-decide-who-runs-the-country-20110201-1aceo.html?posted=successful
The article, while interesting to some, demonstrates the shallowness of some commentators in their analysis.
While it is not wrong to call any changes a government makes reforms, it is misleading to imply all reforms are good for the nation.
Just consider Peter Hartcher's concluding statements: "One of the central reasons that Australia's economy is outperforming the entire developed world at the moment is that we had two decades of bold reform. The reform era has been ended cheaply for unions and capital, but at enormous potential cost to Australia."
Howard lost his last election not because of Unions campaign advertisements, but because of its own longevity and his stubbornness to pass the leadership to younger ones. Voters were tired of Howard, and his IR reforms went too far for many voters' comfort.
Rudd lost his PM position, not because of miners’ advertisement campaign against the RSPT, although that was the last straw. The RSPT itself, of course, was poorly designed and the processes deeply flawed, a reflection of his management style of strong control and leadership shortcomings of lack of consultation.
He essentially lost his own credibility long before that. And his management style and leadership skills did help his fortune at the late stage of his Prime Ministership.
So, in both cases, there were much more fundamental reasons why each of them lost the leadership. Saying their lost means losses of reforms at enormous potential cost to Australia is simply misleading at the best.
OF course, Peter Hartcher appears to be politically biased towards the current government.
Is this a disguised show of support?
The article, while interesting to some, demonstrates the shallowness of some commentators in their analysis.
While it is not wrong to call any changes a government makes reforms, it is misleading to imply all reforms are good for the nation.
Just consider Peter Hartcher's concluding statements: "One of the central reasons that Australia's economy is outperforming the entire developed world at the moment is that we had two decades of bold reform. The reform era has been ended cheaply for unions and capital, but at enormous potential cost to Australia."
Howard lost his last election not because of Unions campaign advertisements, but because of its own longevity and his stubbornness to pass the leadership to younger ones. Voters were tired of Howard, and his IR reforms went too far for many voters' comfort.
Rudd lost his PM position, not because of miners’ advertisement campaign against the RSPT, although that was the last straw. The RSPT itself, of course, was poorly designed and the processes deeply flawed, a reflection of his management style of strong control and leadership shortcomings of lack of consultation.
He essentially lost his own credibility long before that. And his management style and leadership skills did help his fortune at the late stage of his Prime Ministership.
So, in both cases, there were much more fundamental reasons why each of them lost the leadership. Saying their lost means losses of reforms at enormous potential cost to Australia is simply misleading at the best.
OF course, Peter Hartcher appears to be politically biased towards the current government.
Is this a disguised show of support?
2011-01-20
Labor's deficit and arrogance
Comments on Mumble Blog (Peter Brent) “Labor’s debt and deficit problem”, 20/01/2011, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/labors_debt_and_deficit_problem/
Peter, your concluding remark is: "This government could do with a dose of arrogance."
I don't know what you meant exactly.
I would have thought that this government does not have a deficit of arrogance: it has enough but what it has is the wrong sort of arrogance, I am afraid to say.
Do I have evidence to back that up? Yes, of course!
When Gillard says it is not either rebuilding or achieving budget surplus and the government will do both, that is not only arrogant of her, but boasting without any clue of where the money will come from!
When the government says the NBN will be making a commercial return, it is not only arrogant, but close to cheating that can only be made with the reliance of parliamentary privilege. Any private company executives making that sort of comments would find themselves in deep trouble of misleading their shareholders.
When the prime minister and the government say to achieve consensus on carbon pricing but does not allow the opposition parliament members to participate in its committee, it is a display of arrogance to disguise its hypocrisy and political cowardness: one can always get a consensus if that person is the only one to decide.
So, what the government needs is to change the content of its arrogance to the right sort!
PS: seriously, the current government is having big deficits in economic and budget management skills, reflected in its policies. It is skilful in creating committees and task forces. And the Prime Minister is reportedly having more number of staff working for her than Rudd. Presumably that is to make those members not work in dog years as Rudd did or claimed!
Peter, your concluding remark is: "This government could do with a dose of arrogance."
I don't know what you meant exactly.
I would have thought that this government does not have a deficit of arrogance: it has enough but what it has is the wrong sort of arrogance, I am afraid to say.
Do I have evidence to back that up? Yes, of course!
When Gillard says it is not either rebuilding or achieving budget surplus and the government will do both, that is not only arrogant of her, but boasting without any clue of where the money will come from!
When the government says the NBN will be making a commercial return, it is not only arrogant, but close to cheating that can only be made with the reliance of parliamentary privilege. Any private company executives making that sort of comments would find themselves in deep trouble of misleading their shareholders.
When the prime minister and the government say to achieve consensus on carbon pricing but does not allow the opposition parliament members to participate in its committee, it is a display of arrogance to disguise its hypocrisy and political cowardness: one can always get a consensus if that person is the only one to decide.
So, what the government needs is to change the content of its arrogance to the right sort!
PS: seriously, the current government is having big deficits in economic and budget management skills, reflected in its policies. It is skilful in creating committees and task forces. And the Prime Minister is reportedly having more number of staff working for her than Rudd. Presumably that is to make those members not work in dog years as Rudd did or claimed!
2010-12-15
Debt, tax, wastes and infrastructure
Comments on Peter van Onselen “Unlike a household budget, the national economy goes on forever”, 15/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/unlike-a-household-budget-the-national-economy-goes-on-forever/story-e6frg9if-1225971141902
Peter, what you said is obviously true. However, you ignored a few important points.
Firstly, the combination of wastes and increasing government debt is never to be a good look. Under such circumstances, arguing against increasing public debt is not a bad thing to do. That is because there is available fund to do the things you argued which can be done using public debt.
Secondly, the politics of governing and opposition is very different. The opposition's main job is to hold the government to account and expose any shortcomings, weaknesses and mistakes of the government. It is the job of the government to determine what direction to take and what the priority should be.
In this instance, whether there is a need to increase government debt to fund any infrastructure building. Even under this scenario, the government has had difficulties in arguing its case because of its inability to put a business case and cost benefit study for its NBN that it argues is the largest nation building infrastructure project ever.
Thirdly, it is always better to have no debt or lower debt than higher debt, other things equal. The argument that the nation lives forever and grows forever cannot be used to have government debt for that sake. One must prove that the benefits outweigh the costs of having debt.
Fourthly, there is also a trade off between government debt and higher tax and the net benefits between using the two, just as private companies do in terms of using equity and debt financing. That also has an inter-generational dimension. It is interesting that you have not put any reason using debt is superior to more tax.
In summary, it appears that the opposition has done a very good job in its argument against increasing the nation’s public debt and forced the government to take a more cautious approach to spending than otherwise it would do.
Regrettably, the government is continuing its NBN white elephant project in spite of its exposed wastes in pink batts and BER. That is deplorable.
That should be applauded and supported, as opposed to your half rational argument to the contrary.
Peter, what you said is obviously true. However, you ignored a few important points.
Firstly, the combination of wastes and increasing government debt is never to be a good look. Under such circumstances, arguing against increasing public debt is not a bad thing to do. That is because there is available fund to do the things you argued which can be done using public debt.
Secondly, the politics of governing and opposition is very different. The opposition's main job is to hold the government to account and expose any shortcomings, weaknesses and mistakes of the government. It is the job of the government to determine what direction to take and what the priority should be.
In this instance, whether there is a need to increase government debt to fund any infrastructure building. Even under this scenario, the government has had difficulties in arguing its case because of its inability to put a business case and cost benefit study for its NBN that it argues is the largest nation building infrastructure project ever.
Thirdly, it is always better to have no debt or lower debt than higher debt, other things equal. The argument that the nation lives forever and grows forever cannot be used to have government debt for that sake. One must prove that the benefits outweigh the costs of having debt.
Fourthly, there is also a trade off between government debt and higher tax and the net benefits between using the two, just as private companies do in terms of using equity and debt financing. That also has an inter-generational dimension. It is interesting that you have not put any reason using debt is superior to more tax.
In summary, it appears that the opposition has done a very good job in its argument against increasing the nation’s public debt and forced the government to take a more cautious approach to spending than otherwise it would do.
Regrettably, the government is continuing its NBN white elephant project in spite of its exposed wastes in pink batts and BER. That is deplorable.
That should be applauded and supported, as opposed to your half rational argument to the contrary.
2010-11-08
How the PM can deal with the crisis of authority
Comments on Paul Kelly “Prime Minister's crisis of authority”, 6/11/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/prime-ministers-crisis-of-authority/story-e6frg6zo-1225948547720
While those issues “arising from the resources boom, the finance sector, federal-state relations, climate change and boat arrivals” as Kelly put it, are challenging, they are not insoluble.
The two issues related to resources boom and federal-state relations can be dealt with by allowing resources booming states to retain a reasonable portion of their resources rent/tax with no redistribution among the states, similar to what Canada does.
Climate change can be dealt with by introducing a low carbon tax that is revenue neutral and trade neutral, with the provision to raise/change the tax rate consistent with international actions on climate change. This should be politically possible.
In terms of the finance sector, much stronger competition should be introduced with strong enforcing measures. It is interesting to note that when superannuation funds are concerned, there has been talk about default low fee funds. Why isn’t it possible to consider a similar mechanism for mortgages? It is more complex, but there is considerable scope in this field.
The issue with boat arrivals can be more difficult, mainly because of Labor’s refusal to use Nauru as the solution. But it could use it as an intermediate step until a new regional agreement is reached. Australia has provided aid to Nauru in relation to the detention/processing centre there. Why could Australia re-use it temporarily?
While those issues “arising from the resources boom, the finance sector, federal-state relations, climate change and boat arrivals” as Kelly put it, are challenging, they are not insoluble.
The two issues related to resources boom and federal-state relations can be dealt with by allowing resources booming states to retain a reasonable portion of their resources rent/tax with no redistribution among the states, similar to what Canada does.
Climate change can be dealt with by introducing a low carbon tax that is revenue neutral and trade neutral, with the provision to raise/change the tax rate consistent with international actions on climate change. This should be politically possible.
In terms of the finance sector, much stronger competition should be introduced with strong enforcing measures. It is interesting to note that when superannuation funds are concerned, there has been talk about default low fee funds. Why isn’t it possible to consider a similar mechanism for mortgages? It is more complex, but there is considerable scope in this field.
The issue with boat arrivals can be more difficult, mainly because of Labor’s refusal to use Nauru as the solution. But it could use it as an intermediate step until a new regional agreement is reached. Australia has provided aid to Nauru in relation to the detention/processing centre there. Why could Australia re-use it temporarily?
2010-09-11
An excellent article by Peter Beattie
Comments on Peter Beattie “Hung parliament a chance to overhaul whole system”, 11/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hung-parliament-a-chance-to-overhaul-whole-system/story-fn59niix-1225917024971
This is an excellent article.
It's a pity that current politicians who should be able to see those important issues raised by Beattie and can do something about them don't see or haven't seen them or don't raise them.
It is also a pity that federal politicians only want centralisation and don't see how a successful federation is much better than a unitary government system.
High court’s power should also be well defined and there should be a special constitutional court to deal with federation issues.
A fixed 4 year election system at both federal and state levels, supported by a strong, stable, responsive and talented public services, will also be key to nation.
Preferential voting is a joke if voters aren’t even interested in the persons they vote in the first place.
Republic is an important symbol, although it does not change the efficiency and effectiveness of the system much.
Politicians should be well paid to engender competition and attract the best candidates.
This is an excellent article.
It's a pity that current politicians who should be able to see those important issues raised by Beattie and can do something about them don't see or haven't seen them or don't raise them.
It is also a pity that federal politicians only want centralisation and don't see how a successful federation is much better than a unitary government system.
High court’s power should also be well defined and there should be a special constitutional court to deal with federation issues.
A fixed 4 year election system at both federal and state levels, supported by a strong, stable, responsive and talented public services, will also be key to nation.
Preferential voting is a joke if voters aren’t even interested in the persons they vote in the first place.
Republic is an important symbol, although it does not change the efficiency and effectiveness of the system much.
Politicians should be well paid to engender competition and attract the best candidates.
2010-08-25
More accountability for all - the government and the independents
Comments on Paul Kelly “Minorities will be held to account”, 25/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/minorities-will-be-held-to-account/story-e6frgd0x-1225909585049
On parliamentary reforms, it would be nice if the election system could be changed to a fixed 3 or 4 year term, with no double dissolution and two houses should sit jointly if the supply cannot be passed in the senate.
As for a deal with the independents or the greens, maybe the best way is to set up a fund for addressing their demands, but the use of that fund should be based on some independent assessments (at least on how to be used), like by the Productivity Commission, or a parliament budget office in conjunction with the PC.
It is a potential danger that a weak minority government with the greens in balance in the senate and a member in the house will be very costly to the taxpayers in terms of too green in government policies. That danger will be greater if ALP forms the government.
There will be, however, some sort of counter balance from the conservative independent MPs.
On parliamentary reforms, it would be nice if the election system could be changed to a fixed 3 or 4 year term, with no double dissolution and two houses should sit jointly if the supply cannot be passed in the senate.
As for a deal with the independents or the greens, maybe the best way is to set up a fund for addressing their demands, but the use of that fund should be based on some independent assessments (at least on how to be used), like by the Productivity Commission, or a parliament budget office in conjunction with the PC.
It is a potential danger that a weak minority government with the greens in balance in the senate and a member in the house will be very costly to the taxpayers in terms of too green in government policies. That danger will be greater if ALP forms the government.
There will be, however, some sort of counter balance from the conservative independent MPs.
2010-08-24
Efficient government more important than talking about reforms!
Comments on Michael Stutchbury "For want of an agenda", 24/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/for-want-of-an-agenda/story-e6frg9p6-1225909083120
While it is fashionable to talk about reforms, the most important issue of governing is to run a small and efficient government, spend as little as possible of taxpayers' money to achieve as much as possible.
Just imagine that the nation does not spend $43 billion and more on the NBN and just let private companies to compete for businesses.
Or we haven't spend billions in school hall programs?
Or the ill fated home insulation?
Isn't it much better?
While it is fashionable to talk about reforms, the most important issue of governing is to run a small and efficient government, spend as little as possible of taxpayers' money to achieve as much as possible.
Just imagine that the nation does not spend $43 billion and more on the NBN and just let private companies to compete for businesses.
Or we haven't spend billions in school hall programs?
Or the ill fated home insulation?
Isn't it much better?
2010-08-13
Bring the best of competitive and cooperative politics
Comments on Greg Rudd “Forget about Kevin, Julia and Tony and fix politics”, 13/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/forget-about-kevin-julia-and-tony-and-fix-politics/story-e6frg6zo-1225904630598
It is a matter of competition and cooperation in politics, as in economics.
The question is how to get the best of both competition and cooperation.
Is it possible and feasible?
Further and more importantly, what kind of mechanisms or institutions should be in place to ensure the best combination of both?
Clearly, the current state of politics in Australia does not allow that kind of best combination and we should be asking those questions urgently and loudly.
PS: Greg is brother of Kevin Rudd, a former Australian prime minister who was very popular for the first two years of his prime ministership. But his popularity dived after some policy mistakes in the first half of 2010 and was deposed but his party caucus and replace by his deputy in June.
It is a matter of competition and cooperation in politics, as in economics.
The question is how to get the best of both competition and cooperation.
Is it possible and feasible?
Further and more importantly, what kind of mechanisms or institutions should be in place to ensure the best combination of both?
Clearly, the current state of politics in Australia does not allow that kind of best combination and we should be asking those questions urgently and loudly.
PS: Greg is brother of Kevin Rudd, a former Australian prime minister who was very popular for the first two years of his prime ministership. But his popularity dived after some policy mistakes in the first half of 2010 and was deposed but his party caucus and replace by his deputy in June.
2010-06-05
Political accountability needs strengthening
Comments on Paul Kelly “Government that knows best”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/government-that-knows-best/story-e6frg6zo-1225875683928
There is nothing wrong with a person or a government knows the best, per se, as long as equal and adequate constraints or penalty if that belief turns out to be false and has produced wastes and punishable policy consequences.
Government and its responsible ministers, as business administrators and managers, should be responsible and accountable for their actions, both good and bad.
We have business laws that prosecute business leaders for fraud negligence, and malpractice.
We, however, don’t have similar laws to constrain political leaders when they are in government.
If we had such laws, some of the current ministers could be sued for potential negligence or mal administration.
Such constraints will limit the potential damages by politicians to a nation due to mistakes and errors.
There is nothing wrong with a person or a government knows the best, per se, as long as equal and adequate constraints or penalty if that belief turns out to be false and has produced wastes and punishable policy consequences.
Government and its responsible ministers, as business administrators and managers, should be responsible and accountable for their actions, both good and bad.
We have business laws that prosecute business leaders for fraud negligence, and malpractice.
We, however, don’t have similar laws to constrain political leaders when they are in government.
If we had such laws, some of the current ministers could be sued for potential negligence or mal administration.
Such constraints will limit the potential damages by politicians to a nation due to mistakes and errors.
2010-06-03
More and stronger independent public institutions needed
Comments on Jack the Insider “Truth in advertising”, 3/06/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/truth_in_advertising/
It appears that the Rudd government has become a vested or special interested group - no different from any other lobby groups.
The Rudd government, at least from the point of view of the mining advertisement, does not represent the public nor the taxpayers, but the federal ALP politicians themselves, especially the few of their core.
It is indeed "a cancer" in our democracy and national governance.
That is the only few truth that the prime minister has said and practised consistently.
We need better politicians, better government and better governance.
The nature of government as a special interest group of itself sometimes from both sides of politics with extremely consequences and huge costs means that reforms are needed to improve national governance.
One way is to strengthen public institutions to provide public information, policy advices and scrutinies government policies and evaluate policy effects, results and outcomes.
The independence of the RBA is a good example and we need more of such types of public institutions.
It seems that we need some sort of an independent fiscal authority, differing from current Treasury to play a similar role in advocating and implementing fiscal policy.
So is there a need for some independent authority for social policies.
Their roles and authorities and how they should operate will need to be defined clearly.
We need to enhance necessary constraints to politicians, the government and government ministers.
For democracy to work well and best, it requires both the elected politicians to act on behalf of its constituency and the independence of strong public institutions for balance and checks.
The two pillars of democracy must both stand and walk in synchronisation can democracy works best.
It appears that the Rudd government has become a vested or special interested group - no different from any other lobby groups.
The Rudd government, at least from the point of view of the mining advertisement, does not represent the public nor the taxpayers, but the federal ALP politicians themselves, especially the few of their core.
It is indeed "a cancer" in our democracy and national governance.
That is the only few truth that the prime minister has said and practised consistently.
We need better politicians, better government and better governance.
The nature of government as a special interest group of itself sometimes from both sides of politics with extremely consequences and huge costs means that reforms are needed to improve national governance.
One way is to strengthen public institutions to provide public information, policy advices and scrutinies government policies and evaluate policy effects, results and outcomes.
The independence of the RBA is a good example and we need more of such types of public institutions.
It seems that we need some sort of an independent fiscal authority, differing from current Treasury to play a similar role in advocating and implementing fiscal policy.
So is there a need for some independent authority for social policies.
Their roles and authorities and how they should operate will need to be defined clearly.
We need to enhance necessary constraints to politicians, the government and government ministers.
For democracy to work well and best, it requires both the elected politicians to act on behalf of its constituency and the independence of strong public institutions for balance and checks.
The two pillars of democracy must both stand and walk in synchronisation can democracy works best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
