Comments on Sally Zou et al "Mining tax shortfall: the experts respond", 9/02/2013, http://theconversation.edu.au/mining-tax-shortfall-the-experts-respond-12105
When the truth comes to daylight and while we see the dreadful position and policy/taxation skills of the Treasurer and the PM, no one should forget those advisers and the economic and tax advisory institutions behind the scene who were involved in the design of the tax and its finalisation and provided the shameful and deceitful numbers to the public.
At the time, not many reporters, analysts and commentators questioned the numbers provided to the public, even though when both the tax bases and the rate had decreased as well as more generous deductions while the projected total tax didn't change much from the original Henry design.
An incompetent government is generally accompanied by equally incompetent advisers and related institutions.
A further shame is that is is equally likely that those advisers and key persons with the related institutions would have got their promotion similar to the way that the Treasurer became the deputy PM.
Showing posts with label government accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government accountability. Show all posts
2013-01-29
A proposal to amend the constitution to achieve long term benefits
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Abbott's controversial new foundation for Australia”, 29/01/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/How-Abbott-would-lay-a-new-foundation-for-Australi-pd20130129-4DSH5?OpenDocument
While the aspirations are fine, but to me Australia needs more bold and creative thinking.
Perhaps, the most important strategic policy Australia could do is to amend the constitution to achieve two important goals:
1. to enable a stable and more equal relationship between the commonwealth and the states. That will be a lot of work to improve the federation, but the past experience suggests that the federal government has too much power at the expense of the states to be a good federation.
2. to mandate a fiscal framework that automatically constrains any federal government's expenditures and revenue to not exceed a set ratio to the GDP.
Without a hard constraint, government of the day can choose easy and lazy ways as opposed to better and effective ways to govern.
With a hard constraint, political parties will have to compete for better skills in governing and administration, leave the private and household sectors with more resources to use and a better policy environment to be creative and better off.
Australia will be much better off if amendaments to the constitution to such effects are introduced. And the sooner it is done, the better it will be for all Australians.
While the aspirations are fine, but to me Australia needs more bold and creative thinking.
Perhaps, the most important strategic policy Australia could do is to amend the constitution to achieve two important goals:
1. to enable a stable and more equal relationship between the commonwealth and the states. That will be a lot of work to improve the federation, but the past experience suggests that the federal government has too much power at the expense of the states to be a good federation.
2. to mandate a fiscal framework that automatically constrains any federal government's expenditures and revenue to not exceed a set ratio to the GDP.
Without a hard constraint, government of the day can choose easy and lazy ways as opposed to better and effective ways to govern.
With a hard constraint, political parties will have to compete for better skills in governing and administration, leave the private and household sectors with more resources to use and a better policy environment to be creative and better off.
Australia will be much better off if amendaments to the constitution to such effects are introduced. And the sooner it is done, the better it will be for all Australians.
2013-01-10
A method to make reforms easier to be introduced
Comments on David Uren “Swan searches for a surplus strategy”, 10/01/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/swan-searches-for-a-surplus-strategy/story-e6frg6n6-1226550691942
It seems a mutually accept method for the most appropriate resourcing of the PBO is to make a law before an election and make that law effective after the election, so whoever is in the government of the day does not matter much. Then any changes to that legislation should meet a stronger and more stringent condition than simply majority in both houses.
For example, have a legislation to cap the ratio of government revenue to GDP, as well as certain accountability of government policies, can all be made in such a way.
In fact, many difficult policies that may favour or harm the government of the say can be made in such a way to neutralise its effects on the government of the day, but binding on future governments.
It seems a mutually accept method for the most appropriate resourcing of the PBO is to make a law before an election and make that law effective after the election, so whoever is in the government of the day does not matter much. Then any changes to that legislation should meet a stronger and more stringent condition than simply majority in both houses.
For example, have a legislation to cap the ratio of government revenue to GDP, as well as certain accountability of government policies, can all be made in such a way.
In fact, many difficult policies that may favour or harm the government of the say can be made in such a way to neutralise its effects on the government of the day, but binding on future governments.
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.
2010-02-04
ASIC gambles with taxpayers money again!
Comments on “ASIC to appeal Fortescue ruling”, By a staff reporter, with Reuters, 4/02/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Australia-watchdog-to-fight-Fortescue-ruling-2BTT8?OpenDocument
ASIC is using taxpayers' money for its own pride and revenge.
The people who are in charge of ASIC and have made decisions that have had significant costs to ASIC and to taxpayers should be held accountable.
They should resign and take their pride in their private capacity.
Their venture and poor work are not costless.
They should not be allowed to be irresponsible and continue to waste taxpayers' money.
ASIC is using taxpayers' money for its own pride and revenge.
The people who are in charge of ASIC and have made decisions that have had significant costs to ASIC and to taxpayers should be held accountable.
They should resign and take their pride in their private capacity.
Their venture and poor work are not costless.
They should not be allowed to be irresponsible and continue to waste taxpayers' money.
2009-10-30
Government should increase transparency
Comments on two reports in the Asutralian website today on a related topic, potential irresponsible government spendings.
The first one is by Michael Stutchbury "Brazen panel reveals truths", 30/10/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/brazen_panel_reveals_truths/. It relates to the productivity commission (PC) annual report's attachment which comments on Australian government's economic policy making.
What Michael finds two points. One is that the PC's "annual report is impertinent enough to suggest that “increasing flexibility” in labour markets has become even more important in helping the economy exit the global crisis. " The other is that "the commission commends the government for its orthodox commitment to open decision-making and rigorous cost-benefit analysis in determining infrastructure priorities. But it then insolently notes that “these guidelines have not been universally applied to date, however”. "
My comments on this article is:
"Where is Rudd’s economic conservatism? It is economic recklessness, isn’t it? It is appalling that taxpayers’ money can be wasted by government like the Rudd’s.
There should be a law that government can be sued for its economic mismanagement, just like corporate executives who did the wrong things."
The second one is by Henry Ergas "Cronyism on the sly", 30/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26277992-5013479,00.html. It is about how governments in Australia, both federal and state ones, use excuses of confidential contracts to shield some of their large spending decisions from public scrutiny. It starts with:
"EARLY this year, Victorian Transport Minister Lynne Kosky locked away until 2058 all the documents surrounding the troubled construction of Melbourne's $700 million Southern Cross Station. Were transparency and accountability thereby eliminated? No, merely deferred, though if you want to see those contracts, you'll need to keep pretty fit."
My comments for this article are the following:
"There should be law to govern the spending of public money. any government should make the relevant documents except those are classified available within 3-5 years.
Further government ministers and bureaucrats who are responsible can be sued for mismanagement of public money, just as business executives."
The first one is by Michael Stutchbury "Brazen panel reveals truths", 30/10/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/brazen_panel_reveals_truths/. It relates to the productivity commission (PC) annual report's attachment which comments on Australian government's economic policy making.
What Michael finds two points. One is that the PC's "annual report is impertinent enough to suggest that “increasing flexibility” in labour markets has become even more important in helping the economy exit the global crisis. " The other is that "the commission commends the government for its orthodox commitment to open decision-making and rigorous cost-benefit analysis in determining infrastructure priorities. But it then insolently notes that “these guidelines have not been universally applied to date, however”. "
My comments on this article is:
"Where is Rudd’s economic conservatism? It is economic recklessness, isn’t it? It is appalling that taxpayers’ money can be wasted by government like the Rudd’s.
There should be a law that government can be sued for its economic mismanagement, just like corporate executives who did the wrong things."
The second one is by Henry Ergas "Cronyism on the sly", 30/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26277992-5013479,00.html. It is about how governments in Australia, both federal and state ones, use excuses of confidential contracts to shield some of their large spending decisions from public scrutiny. It starts with:
"EARLY this year, Victorian Transport Minister Lynne Kosky locked away until 2058 all the documents surrounding the troubled construction of Melbourne's $700 million Southern Cross Station. Were transparency and accountability thereby eliminated? No, merely deferred, though if you want to see those contracts, you'll need to keep pretty fit."
My comments for this article are the following:
"There should be law to govern the spending of public money. any government should make the relevant documents except those are classified available within 3-5 years.
Further government ministers and bureaucrats who are responsible can be sued for mismanagement of public money, just as business executives."
2009-09-15
A need of an independent commission to scrutinise government spending
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “More waste in train”, 15/09/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/more_waste_in_train/
This is yet another example of the lack of accountability of government wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money.
There should be an independent statutory accountability commission of spending of public money. Such a body should be set up by the parliament and have enough resources to provide scrutiny of government's spending programs.
It is high time to have such a body. The budget chart is not enough and does not have any hard constraints on the effectiveness and efficiency of government spending.
If the Rudd government wants to enhance productivity and efficiency, wants to improve the nation's living standard, they should have no hesitation to set up such a body. It should be urgent.
This is yet another example of the lack of accountability of government wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money.
There should be an independent statutory accountability commission of spending of public money. Such a body should be set up by the parliament and have enough resources to provide scrutiny of government's spending programs.
It is high time to have such a body. The budget chart is not enough and does not have any hard constraints on the effectiveness and efficiency of government spending.
If the Rudd government wants to enhance productivity and efficiency, wants to improve the nation's living standard, they should have no hesitation to set up such a body. It should be urgent.
2009-09-03
Redesign remaining fiscal stimulus measures
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “The big cash splash”, 3/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26019544-17301,00.html
This shows how incompetent and poor management of budget spending are wasteful and hard to stop once in train. The Rudd government will be remembered for its wasteful spending and it will have to live with that legacy for the time to come. It might come back to bite them even as early as the next election if it is held in its normal cycle.
As Shanahan pointed out, there is political as well as economic difficulties that may prevent the Rudd government from cutting back its big cash splash. However, it is not too late to redesign some of the stimulus package to target better and achieve better outcomes than the original budget plan. That requires skills as well as political courage.
It will be a test of its real economic management credential. The taxpayers and the public will tolerate government inefficiencies and incompetence forever, no matter how skilful the government is in political spins. The political rhetoric for government intervention and big spending using the recession as excuses cannot stand for too long, given that the economy has shown resilience in holding up growth.
They need to wake up to the reality and its honey moon is over. Public scrutiny will be strong and strengthened over the next months. They will be held accountable for their economic and program management.
This shows how incompetent and poor management of budget spending are wasteful and hard to stop once in train. The Rudd government will be remembered for its wasteful spending and it will have to live with that legacy for the time to come. It might come back to bite them even as early as the next election if it is held in its normal cycle.
As Shanahan pointed out, there is political as well as economic difficulties that may prevent the Rudd government from cutting back its big cash splash. However, it is not too late to redesign some of the stimulus package to target better and achieve better outcomes than the original budget plan. That requires skills as well as political courage.
It will be a test of its real economic management credential. The taxpayers and the public will tolerate government inefficiencies and incompetence forever, no matter how skilful the government is in political spins. The political rhetoric for government intervention and big spending using the recession as excuses cannot stand for too long, given that the economy has shown resilience in holding up growth.
They need to wake up to the reality and its honey moon is over. Public scrutiny will be strong and strengthened over the next months. They will be held accountable for their economic and program management.
2009-09-02
Testing time for Rudd government
Comments on Paul Kelly “Labor's character test”, 2/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26014152-12250,00.html
The longer the time went on and the more evidence we got, the more problems have been shown up in the government's economic, budgetary and expenditure management.
Although there are some understandable reasons to expect some difficulties, such as a new and inexperienced government with a lot of commitment to deliver, the largely unexpected and sudden financial and economic crisis that forced upon a new government to act and act quickly, the many and huge programs going on at the same time.
However, it has been nearly two years since the Rudd government was elected now and it is time for it to reflect on how it has performed in terms of both expectations and delivery and make rapid adjustment to the way how it governs and leads the nation.
It is not too late yet for the Rudd government to improve and show its management especially program management credential in addition to its political skills. But it should not have any complacency in recognising and addressing the problems already showing up and pay attention to future programs that are to come.
If the Rudd government can rapidly improve from now on, it will be a more formidable government / party and will like be in government for a long time to come. But if it doesn’t change rapidly, its huge election mandate and popularity will evaporate soon and will have the danger to be an one term government, notwithstanding its huge popularity in the last election.
It is a matter for the Rudd government to decide what it wants to do that will determine the outcome of the next election, given that the current disarray state of the opposition.
The longer the time went on and the more evidence we got, the more problems have been shown up in the government's economic, budgetary and expenditure management.
Although there are some understandable reasons to expect some difficulties, such as a new and inexperienced government with a lot of commitment to deliver, the largely unexpected and sudden financial and economic crisis that forced upon a new government to act and act quickly, the many and huge programs going on at the same time.
However, it has been nearly two years since the Rudd government was elected now and it is time for it to reflect on how it has performed in terms of both expectations and delivery and make rapid adjustment to the way how it governs and leads the nation.
It is not too late yet for the Rudd government to improve and show its management especially program management credential in addition to its political skills. But it should not have any complacency in recognising and addressing the problems already showing up and pay attention to future programs that are to come.
If the Rudd government can rapidly improve from now on, it will be a more formidable government / party and will like be in government for a long time to come. But if it doesn’t change rapidly, its huge election mandate and popularity will evaporate soon and will have the danger to be an one term government, notwithstanding its huge popularity in the last election.
It is a matter for the Rudd government to decide what it wants to do that will determine the outcome of the next election, given that the current disarray state of the opposition.
2009-09-01
Questions mount on PM spending and can't be ignored any longer
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Questions mount on PM's spending”, 1/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26008616-17301,00.html
From the beginning, Labour's stimulus packages had stings and did not smell right, despite being covered by the pitch and excuses of jobs and employment.
While one cannot avoid every waste, the way Labour approached its spending programs showed its poor economic management skills and credentials.
There was no question that the government needed to intervene earlier and at those times. But the key question was how.
To use an example can illustrate this point. One cannot imagine that cash handouts were the best way to use taxpayers’ money to stimulate the economy through stimulating consumption. Why didn’t the government use a consumer purchase rebate/subsidy program that would be directly linked to consumer spending and avoid hoarding? Why did the government use debt that will increase burdens for future taxpayers, to do those cash sprees?
The government’s cash handouts, especially the first one, also had a strong redistribution consequence that was not necessarily optimal given its hastiness.
Now we have all heard the waste in spending on schools and the problems including both waste and no result with Indigenous hosing.
Compared to this, the government has the $43 billion NBN project in its plan. Imagine how big the waste will be with this huge project, considering what has emerged from what has been spent and been shown as waste already?
The Rudd government needs to have a cold shower to become rational. It needs to wake up now and to reflect fundamentally on its economic management, approaches and policies. It must take hard decisions and act responsibly as a government, even though there is not any effective pressure from the very weak opposition so far, because things can change soon and they will change.
From the beginning, Labour's stimulus packages had stings and did not smell right, despite being covered by the pitch and excuses of jobs and employment.
While one cannot avoid every waste, the way Labour approached its spending programs showed its poor economic management skills and credentials.
There was no question that the government needed to intervene earlier and at those times. But the key question was how.
To use an example can illustrate this point. One cannot imagine that cash handouts were the best way to use taxpayers’ money to stimulate the economy through stimulating consumption. Why didn’t the government use a consumer purchase rebate/subsidy program that would be directly linked to consumer spending and avoid hoarding? Why did the government use debt that will increase burdens for future taxpayers, to do those cash sprees?
The government’s cash handouts, especially the first one, also had a strong redistribution consequence that was not necessarily optimal given its hastiness.
Now we have all heard the waste in spending on schools and the problems including both waste and no result with Indigenous hosing.
Compared to this, the government has the $43 billion NBN project in its plan. Imagine how big the waste will be with this huge project, considering what has emerged from what has been spent and been shown as waste already?
The Rudd government needs to have a cold shower to become rational. It needs to wake up now and to reflect fundamentally on its economic management, approaches and policies. It must take hard decisions and act responsibly as a government, even though there is not any effective pressure from the very weak opposition so far, because things can change soon and they will change.
2009-08-31
Our would-be FDRs?
Comments on David Burchell “History, but only as we choose to remember it”, 31/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26003033-5015664,00.html
I agree totally and completely with the following:
"Our would-be FDRs, by adopting the mantle of nation-building without really comprehending its original purpose, have in effect played a joke upon themselves and us."
One is reminded of the essay of our own would-be FDR at the home ground about the economic crisis, some sort of attempt to write the history.
Billions and billions will be wasted, just in the political name of jobs, without cost and benefit analysis at all. Every spending and waste is justified by them with the name of maintaining and creating jobs, though the effects on jobs are a different story altogether.
Why as long as jobs are mentioned, all prudence is put aside? Where is government accountability?
We need honesty from politicians and government. They should stop using endless spins for their political advantages and advancing their own interest in the name of jobs.
I agree totally and completely with the following:
"Our would-be FDRs, by adopting the mantle of nation-building without really comprehending its original purpose, have in effect played a joke upon themselves and us."
One is reminded of the essay of our own would-be FDR at the home ground about the economic crisis, some sort of attempt to write the history.
Billions and billions will be wasted, just in the political name of jobs, without cost and benefit analysis at all. Every spending and waste is justified by them with the name of maintaining and creating jobs, though the effects on jobs are a different story altogether.
Why as long as jobs are mentioned, all prudence is put aside? Where is government accountability?
We need honesty from politicians and government. They should stop using endless spins for their political advantages and advancing their own interest in the name of jobs.
Serious government accountability badly needed in Australia
Comments on Glenn Milne “Poodle's bite may yet wound the government”, 31/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26003029-7583,00.html
The federal government begins to effectively acknowledge the huge waste in its spending programs, such as the Indigenous Housing in the Northern Territory where so many months have past and so much money spent and yet no single house has been built, and the Building Education Revolution spending in schools with a blow out to the order of $1.5 billion.
It shows a serious problem with government accountability for spending taxpayers’ money. While Labour has often been guilty of big government and government spending and increasing the level public debt, the lack of proper and effective accountability for spending is not confined just to Labour. We have heard before in huge military program with billions and billions spending that could not achieve the desired objectives.
It is high time to change this situation of seriously lacking of accountability. There are a number of things that can improve Australian politics and government accountability.
The first one is there should be a publically funded organisation to keep a record both online and in file of what the political parties promised policies and a chart for each promise about its status, for the years at least until some years after its finished.
The second is that either this organisation or another publically funded statutory authority to audit and evaluate public spendings. The organisation can also publish other independent assessments in addition to its own assessment.
The third one is that there should be a parliamentary court that can prosecute politicians for their serious mistakes that cause taxpayers' money being wasted or wrongfully spent. There needs to be effective accountability of using taxpayer’s money. The punishment can be banning a guilty person from being a minister, or a politician.
If these things are done properly, the public will have more confidence of their politicians and the government. Australian government will be more efficient and effective and Australia will be a better place.
The federal government begins to effectively acknowledge the huge waste in its spending programs, such as the Indigenous Housing in the Northern Territory where so many months have past and so much money spent and yet no single house has been built, and the Building Education Revolution spending in schools with a blow out to the order of $1.5 billion.
It shows a serious problem with government accountability for spending taxpayers’ money. While Labour has often been guilty of big government and government spending and increasing the level public debt, the lack of proper and effective accountability for spending is not confined just to Labour. We have heard before in huge military program with billions and billions spending that could not achieve the desired objectives.
It is high time to change this situation of seriously lacking of accountability. There are a number of things that can improve Australian politics and government accountability.
The first one is there should be a publically funded organisation to keep a record both online and in file of what the political parties promised policies and a chart for each promise about its status, for the years at least until some years after its finished.
The second is that either this organisation or another publically funded statutory authority to audit and evaluate public spendings. The organisation can also publish other independent assessments in addition to its own assessment.
The third one is that there should be a parliamentary court that can prosecute politicians for their serious mistakes that cause taxpayers' money being wasted or wrongfully spent. There needs to be effective accountability of using taxpayer’s money. The punishment can be banning a guilty person from being a minister, or a politician.
If these things are done properly, the public will have more confidence of their politicians and the government. Australian government will be more efficient and effective and Australia will be a better place.
2009-08-24
Another case of lack of accountability by government and bureaucrats
Comments on report of “Overseas-trained doctors warned: 'Don't come here'” by DANIELLE CRONIN, The Canberra Times, 24/08/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/overseastrained-doctors-warned-dont-come-here/1603704.aspx
This case shows how inefficient government and bureaucrats are and how that inefficiency is affecting the lives and well beings of many Australians. It is totally unacceptable and must be changed. But the sad fact is that it is by no means an isolated incident. On the contrary, similar things can occur very frequently at both the federal and state government levels. One, for example, cannot forget the much talked and delayed project of over $600 million for Indigenous housing. So long time has passed and there is no single house built.
Government and bureaucrats must improve their efficiency of services and make policy more effective. On the one hand, there is a significant shortage of medical doctors and a long waiting list of patients. Yet on the other hand, we have seen cases like this that it took 28 days for the bureaucrats to work out a medical provision number for a newly arrived overseas doctor to work in Australia.
Both the government and bureaucrats should and must be accountable to the public and the taxpayers. The heads of those politicians who are responsible, but more likely of the relevant responsible bureaucrats should roll. Otherwise the lack of responsibility and accountability means inefficiency and more inefficiency, red tapes and more red tapes.
This case shows how inefficient government and bureaucrats are and how that inefficiency is affecting the lives and well beings of many Australians. It is totally unacceptable and must be changed. But the sad fact is that it is by no means an isolated incident. On the contrary, similar things can occur very frequently at both the federal and state government levels. One, for example, cannot forget the much talked and delayed project of over $600 million for Indigenous housing. So long time has passed and there is no single house built.
Government and bureaucrats must improve their efficiency of services and make policy more effective. On the one hand, there is a significant shortage of medical doctors and a long waiting list of patients. Yet on the other hand, we have seen cases like this that it took 28 days for the bureaucrats to work out a medical provision number for a newly arrived overseas doctor to work in Australia.
Both the government and bureaucrats should and must be accountable to the public and the taxpayers. The heads of those politicians who are responsible, but more likely of the relevant responsible bureaucrats should roll. Otherwise the lack of responsibility and accountability means inefficiency and more inefficiency, red tapes and more red tapes.
Public services must be services for the public
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Not much open justice and even less public service”, 23/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/not_much_open_justice_and_even_less_public_service/
That is an awful experience with public services. Was that an encounter with public services at the State level or federal level? What about the freedom of information act? Does that act cover the justice or court system?
It is ironic that the court proceedings are open and its transcripts are not. Also, the public servants whom Janet Albrechtsen described do not serve the public. The story also reveals the serious inefficiency that the public services provide their services.
Both the inefficiency of public services and the non-public access to court transcripts are unacceptable and must be changed or improved. Public services must be efficient and serve the public. The court transcripts should be available for whoever is interested. Only a more open justice system can improve the accountability of justice and justice itself.
Charges may be applied, but they must be reasonable to cover the costs at most and should not be run as a commercial business. And those charges must be openly displayed.
There is a need for public service ombudsman so the public can have a place to complain about inefficient and unfair public services. That will help improve public services and increase accountability of public services.
That is an awful experience with public services. Was that an encounter with public services at the State level or federal level? What about the freedom of information act? Does that act cover the justice or court system?
It is ironic that the court proceedings are open and its transcripts are not. Also, the public servants whom Janet Albrechtsen described do not serve the public. The story also reveals the serious inefficiency that the public services provide their services.
Both the inefficiency of public services and the non-public access to court transcripts are unacceptable and must be changed or improved. Public services must be efficient and serve the public. The court transcripts should be available for whoever is interested. Only a more open justice system can improve the accountability of justice and justice itself.
Charges may be applied, but they must be reasonable to cover the costs at most and should not be run as a commercial business. And those charges must be openly displayed.
There is a need for public service ombudsman so the public can have a place to complain about inefficient and unfair public services. That will help improve public services and increase accountability of public services.
2009-08-13
Be a responsible government and manage the economy and budget well
Comments on Alan Wood “There's plenty to borrow, but Rudd will need to cut debt”, 13/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25920869-5013578,00.html
There are several issues raised in this article. Firstly, it is not just the level of budget deficit and government debt but also the quality of government spending that leads to the deficits and debts that will matter. While it is difficult to judge the level of the projected budget deficit is the appropriate or not at the time of the budget being made, it has now been shown that some of the government spending in its budget measures are wasteful and could have been better targeted and managed to either reduce the size of deficits or achieve greater and better outcomes.
Secondly, Australia is a small country internationally, so the impact of its borrowing internationally will not have a significant impact on the international capital market, although the costs of borrowing both publicly and privately will be higher due to tightening internationally capital market. That impact may be sizeable in terms of the dollar amount, but that should not be a worry itself.
Thirdly, it is absolutely an imperative for any government especially the Rudd one to guard against unnecessary government spending and be smarter, highly focused and well targeted in its fiscal policy to minimise spending and maximise the budget impact on growth and employment. The government must wind down its deficits and reduce the debts as early as possible and stand ready at any time when and if appropriate to do that.
Rudd and his government, have a huge responsibility to return the trust the Australian public has given them and do a better job than they have done so far. They paid some learning fees in how to manage the economy. They should learn rapidly enough to get on top of their jobs, starting from now.
There are several issues raised in this article. Firstly, it is not just the level of budget deficit and government debt but also the quality of government spending that leads to the deficits and debts that will matter. While it is difficult to judge the level of the projected budget deficit is the appropriate or not at the time of the budget being made, it has now been shown that some of the government spending in its budget measures are wasteful and could have been better targeted and managed to either reduce the size of deficits or achieve greater and better outcomes.
Secondly, Australia is a small country internationally, so the impact of its borrowing internationally will not have a significant impact on the international capital market, although the costs of borrowing both publicly and privately will be higher due to tightening internationally capital market. That impact may be sizeable in terms of the dollar amount, but that should not be a worry itself.
Thirdly, it is absolutely an imperative for any government especially the Rudd one to guard against unnecessary government spending and be smarter, highly focused and well targeted in its fiscal policy to minimise spending and maximise the budget impact on growth and employment. The government must wind down its deficits and reduce the debts as early as possible and stand ready at any time when and if appropriate to do that.
Rudd and his government, have a huge responsibility to return the trust the Australian public has given them and do a better job than they have done so far. They paid some learning fees in how to manage the economy. They should learn rapidly enough to get on top of their jobs, starting from now.
2009-08-11
Beyond spins: where is Rudd government's accountability?
Comments on Jack the Insider “Aboriginal housing Labor’s greatest shame”, 10/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/aboriginal_housing_labors_greatest_shame/
This is yet another example of the Rudd government’s inability to get policy implementation right. After 18 months and with $672 million planned funding, there is no single house built, yet an estimated $50 million of filthy lucre has or will be sucked down by the Northern Territory bureaucracy. Further even the federal minister for Indigenous people has admitted that more than $100 million (probably $150 or $160 million from my memory) of that funding will not spent on real buildings but in administrations and other processes.
This also shows that the Rudd government has no real and hard accountability to the Australian people and Australian taxpayers for their money through their hard work. Of course, an ineffective and ineffectual federal opposition also provided a fertile ground for the prevalence of such a lack of accountability. They are not good enough and must change or be changed.
It is good that the government has taken some social initiatives with good intentions. But it is an entirely different matter if those good intentions cannot be translated into the intended outcomes.
Mr Rudd and its government must take a hard look at and think about its policy implementations after nearly two years in office and make urgent changes to make its policy effective, and to be really accountable to the Australian people and taxpayers. The time is overdue and they need to do that soon. Billions and billions are at stake, Mr Rudd. Do it and do it now.
This is yet another example of the Rudd government’s inability to get policy implementation right. After 18 months and with $672 million planned funding, there is no single house built, yet an estimated $50 million of filthy lucre has or will be sucked down by the Northern Territory bureaucracy. Further even the federal minister for Indigenous people has admitted that more than $100 million (probably $150 or $160 million from my memory) of that funding will not spent on real buildings but in administrations and other processes.
This also shows that the Rudd government has no real and hard accountability to the Australian people and Australian taxpayers for their money through their hard work. Of course, an ineffective and ineffectual federal opposition also provided a fertile ground for the prevalence of such a lack of accountability. They are not good enough and must change or be changed.
It is good that the government has taken some social initiatives with good intentions. But it is an entirely different matter if those good intentions cannot be translated into the intended outcomes.
Mr Rudd and its government must take a hard look at and think about its policy implementations after nearly two years in office and make urgent changes to make its policy effective, and to be really accountable to the Australian people and taxpayers. The time is overdue and they need to do that soon. Billions and billions are at stake, Mr Rudd. Do it and do it now.
2009-07-10
Real deeds needed
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Tyranny of expectations”, 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25757932-17301,00.html
From now on the Rudd government and its ministers will be truly tested for what they can and can’t do to deliver to their election promises and their ability in managing the economy and budget, although it is interesting that the government, Rudd and Swan in particular, don’t acknowledge the excellent starting point of the Australian economy and federal budgetary position they inherited from the previous government. They can still deny the starting point for now, but they can’t do the same trick forever.
Unfortunately for the Rudd government, it has already sod the seeds for disasters. They used the international crisis as an excuse to over-spend unnecessarily or squander taxpayers’ money. They have over done on the industrial relations law and moved too far as to ban individual agreements. They have irresponsibly raised the expectations of spending more than $40 billion on a national broadband network that could all use taxpayers’ money without a business case study or feasibility study. They have assumed future security threat from China to increase defence spending by tens of billions.
It would be interesting to see if they have the courage to have an election after the federal budget next year, because by then, some results of true tests would have shown. Also, it would not be able to avoid a tough budget for the next one.
I have no prejudice on the Rudd government and hope it can do a fine job. But I fear it probably can’t do so based on what we have seen so far.
From now on the Rudd government and its ministers will be truly tested for what they can and can’t do to deliver to their election promises and their ability in managing the economy and budget, although it is interesting that the government, Rudd and Swan in particular, don’t acknowledge the excellent starting point of the Australian economy and federal budgetary position they inherited from the previous government. They can still deny the starting point for now, but they can’t do the same trick forever.
Unfortunately for the Rudd government, it has already sod the seeds for disasters. They used the international crisis as an excuse to over-spend unnecessarily or squander taxpayers’ money. They have over done on the industrial relations law and moved too far as to ban individual agreements. They have irresponsibly raised the expectations of spending more than $40 billion on a national broadband network that could all use taxpayers’ money without a business case study or feasibility study. They have assumed future security threat from China to increase defence spending by tens of billions.
It would be interesting to see if they have the courage to have an election after the federal budget next year, because by then, some results of true tests would have shown. Also, it would not be able to avoid a tough budget for the next one.
I have no prejudice on the Rudd government and hope it can do a fine job. But I fear it probably can’t do so based on what we have seen so far.
2009-06-29
Another form of unacceptable political favorism
Comments on Glenn Milne “Winners, losers both show ugly sides”, 29/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25703955-33435,00.html
It is very disturbing to hear government retribution on people who have criticised its economic policy, or jounorlsts who used to email opposition contacts are now much more warry.
Australia is proud of its democracy and freedom. Different opinions are a matter of normal life and healthy in any democracy and free country. It is also a useful form of public check over many issues, such as government policies when people can openly question them.
Why did the government presure the chairperson and the CEO of a private company asking the company not to use the services of a commentator who had publiclly questioned the government’s economic policy? Is Australia becoming an authoritarian state, or a police state?
The government can use public agencies to its own advantage. However, is the government action in presuring a private company overreaching? Isn’t those actions the same as political favorism when they use their political positions to persecute people who dare to differ? Did that breach any law or regulation? Should any people from the government invovled in that process take some personal responsibility and be accountable for their acts to affect the commentator’s empployment and future earnings?
There are some serious questions about what behaviour is and / or is not ethical and acceptable in terms those who hold government positions and / or use government power. They need to be asked and answered.
It is very disturbing to hear government retribution on people who have criticised its economic policy, or jounorlsts who used to email opposition contacts are now much more warry.
Australia is proud of its democracy and freedom. Different opinions are a matter of normal life and healthy in any democracy and free country. It is also a useful form of public check over many issues, such as government policies when people can openly question them.
Why did the government presure the chairperson and the CEO of a private company asking the company not to use the services of a commentator who had publiclly questioned the government’s economic policy? Is Australia becoming an authoritarian state, or a police state?
The government can use public agencies to its own advantage. However, is the government action in presuring a private company overreaching? Isn’t those actions the same as political favorism when they use their political positions to persecute people who dare to differ? Did that breach any law or regulation? Should any people from the government invovled in that process take some personal responsibility and be accountable for their acts to affect the commentator’s empployment and future earnings?
There are some serious questions about what behaviour is and / or is not ethical and acceptable in terms those who hold government positions and / or use government power. They need to be asked and answered.
2009-06-26
Both sides of politics and top bureaucrats all need to lift their games
Comments on Michael Costa “Mal, lose 'born to rule' style”, 26/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25690445-7583,00.html
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkable incompetent economic and budget management. Turnbull's unlucky, rush and miscalculation in the Utegate affair has temporally delayed the inevitable fate of Swan to resign as Treasurer. He is incompetent as Treasurer and has been proven to have acted improperly and has misled the parliament. He should resign for either account. The nation just cannot afford to have an incompetent Treasurer at the helm of Treasury to be in charge of the budget and economic management.
Swan’s problems, however, does not appear to be his own alone – it appears to be a more deep problem of the current Labour government involving quite a few ministers. The minister for finance is responsible for federal expenditure. The minister for education is responsible for the expenditure on schools. The minister for communication is responsible for the NBN costs increase to $43 billion. Of course, the Treasurer is directly responsible for the cash handouts, if he could be excused for not directly for others at all. Of course, the prime minister, with his economic essay advocating for government intervention, is responsible for the combination of these expenditures or proposals.
The problems with the opposition have been that they were unable to hold the government to account for its reckless spending. The government, the prime minister and the treasurer, have been talking nonsense like that “the alternative is to do nothing”. The tragedy for the opposition is that it has been so ineffective in its attack on the government and the prime minister and the treasurer when they were talking nonsense. The argument is so weak and illogical. Yet the opposition could not fight that simple battle.
The winter recess of the parliament should be a good opportunity for both sides of federal politics to reflect and rethink their strategies and polices. They have performed extremely poorly and both need to lift their games.
There is also the question of the quality of advices from bureaucrats. The government’s problem in managing the budget and the economy call into question of what advices they got from Treasury and different departments. Were they the cases that the government were given quality advices and ignored them? Or were the advices, or at least some of them, of questionable quality, due to political pressure or incompetent top bureaucrats? The Utegate affair and the revelation of what Treasury officials have done and known appear to suggest the politicisation of public services and the involvement in activities that they should have not done in the ways they were handled.
So top bureaucrats, or government ministers also need to consider how to improve policy advices from bureaucrats to assist the government in managing the nation’s affairs, especially budgetary and economic affairs.
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkable incompetent economic and budget management. Turnbull's unlucky, rush and miscalculation in the Utegate affair has temporally delayed the inevitable fate of Swan to resign as Treasurer. He is incompetent as Treasurer and has been proven to have acted improperly and has misled the parliament. He should resign for either account. The nation just cannot afford to have an incompetent Treasurer at the helm of Treasury to be in charge of the budget and economic management.
Swan’s problems, however, does not appear to be his own alone – it appears to be a more deep problem of the current Labour government involving quite a few ministers. The minister for finance is responsible for federal expenditure. The minister for education is responsible for the expenditure on schools. The minister for communication is responsible for the NBN costs increase to $43 billion. Of course, the Treasurer is directly responsible for the cash handouts, if he could be excused for not directly for others at all. Of course, the prime minister, with his economic essay advocating for government intervention, is responsible for the combination of these expenditures or proposals.
The problems with the opposition have been that they were unable to hold the government to account for its reckless spending. The government, the prime minister and the treasurer, have been talking nonsense like that “the alternative is to do nothing”. The tragedy for the opposition is that it has been so ineffective in its attack on the government and the prime minister and the treasurer when they were talking nonsense. The argument is so weak and illogical. Yet the opposition could not fight that simple battle.
The winter recess of the parliament should be a good opportunity for both sides of federal politics to reflect and rethink their strategies and polices. They have performed extremely poorly and both need to lift their games.
There is also the question of the quality of advices from bureaucrats. The government’s problem in managing the budget and the economy call into question of what advices they got from Treasury and different departments. Were they the cases that the government were given quality advices and ignored them? Or were the advices, or at least some of them, of questionable quality, due to political pressure or incompetent top bureaucrats? The Utegate affair and the revelation of what Treasury officials have done and known appear to suggest the politicisation of public services and the involvement in activities that they should have not done in the ways they were handled.
So top bureaucrats, or government ministers also need to consider how to improve policy advices from bureaucrats to assist the government in managing the nation’s affairs, especially budgetary and economic affairs.
2009-06-24
Accountability important to governance - parliament debates not a waste
Comments on David Penberthy “Memo MPs: the public has had a gutful of Utegate”, 24/06/2009, http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/memo-mps-public-has-had-a-gutful-of-utegate/
It is regrettable things like these happened in Federal politics. But it is important for both sides of politics to hold the other side accountable for what they do. This is an important check and balance in our democracy and governance.
If any blames are to be made, the receivers should be the government and its ministers. They created the whole thing in the first place.
The government also used the public services and the police improperly to gain party advantages at the expense of justice and the opposition. Both public services and the police also acted poorly and improperly. Treasury did not act as independently and impartial and non-political as it should. Neither did the police in its inquiry.
The imprudent tactics by Turnbull just unfortunately created an opportunity for the government and the Prime Minister to seize to cover their own mess in the Utegate affairs. There is a lesson for Turnbull and its close ministers in terms of political skills.
The whole drama indicates there should be a royal commission inquiry into this matter, including the roles of politicians and public services and the police. Further there should be a judiciary body, like NSW State ICAC, to handle and investigate potential impropriety of federal politicians, as well as bureaucrats. Leave matters like the Utegate fiasco to government is unfair to the public.
It is regrettable things like these happened in Federal politics. But it is important for both sides of politics to hold the other side accountable for what they do. This is an important check and balance in our democracy and governance.
If any blames are to be made, the receivers should be the government and its ministers. They created the whole thing in the first place.
The government also used the public services and the police improperly to gain party advantages at the expense of justice and the opposition. Both public services and the police also acted poorly and improperly. Treasury did not act as independently and impartial and non-political as it should. Neither did the police in its inquiry.
The imprudent tactics by Turnbull just unfortunately created an opportunity for the government and the Prime Minister to seize to cover their own mess in the Utegate affairs. There is a lesson for Turnbull and its close ministers in terms of political skills.
The whole drama indicates there should be a royal commission inquiry into this matter, including the roles of politicians and public services and the police. Further there should be a judiciary body, like NSW State ICAC, to handle and investigate potential impropriety of federal politicians, as well as bureaucrats. Leave matters like the Utegate fiasco to government is unfair to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
