Comments on Michael Koziol "Election 2016: How Michaelia Cash became the new Eddie Everywhere of Australian politics", 18/04/2016
While that phrase is not wrong and admirable for many, it should also be combined with work smart and work smarter. However, this is also a case similar to the political correctness, most people probably have a feeling that it would not be correct to say otherwise, just as the minister has done.
For a federal politician and government minister, she has got a lot of resources to work for her and that is for sure. What that means is she needs to stand on top of those resources and make sure they are well used to assist her in making the right decisions.
She does not need to, and does not have to, work her butt off. The main thing is her judgement and the ability/capacity to make informed decisions. Some political operability would help in getting things done and achieve.
Showing posts with label politician. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politician. Show all posts
2015-08-04
Yes to an independent umpire to enforce parliamentary entitlement rules
Comments on Alan Fels "Wanted: an independent umpire to set and enforce clear parliamentary entitlement rules", 4/08/2015
The proposal to have an independent body to enforce the rules for parliamentarians is a good one. It should be carefully considered and included in the recommendations in the review announced by the Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
The current practice of having the Department of Finance to do such similar work means it is toothless tiger, given that there have been so many misuses already exposed and highly publicised. One can only imagine how many there are more misuses that have not been exposed.
To have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as the co-chair of the review is a joke, given that the tribunal in the past has granted outrageous increases in the pay to parliamentarians, something like dozens or even around 50 percent in one go.
Those were not consistent with community or public expectations. That tribunal has lost its creditability due to those ridiculous magnitudes of increases.
As a result, the tribunal needs fundamental reforms to reflects community standards and expectations.
The proposal to have an independent body to enforce the rules for parliamentarians is a good one. It should be carefully considered and included in the recommendations in the review announced by the Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
The current practice of having the Department of Finance to do such similar work means it is toothless tiger, given that there have been so many misuses already exposed and highly publicised. One can only imagine how many there are more misuses that have not been exposed.
To have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as the co-chair of the review is a joke, given that the tribunal in the past has granted outrageous increases in the pay to parliamentarians, something like dozens or even around 50 percent in one go.
Those were not consistent with community or public expectations. That tribunal has lost its creditability due to those ridiculous magnitudes of increases.
As a result, the tribunal needs fundamental reforms to reflects community standards and expectations.
2015-08-02
A crude joke - the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as co-chair to review politicians travel entitlements
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.
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.
2015-07-21
Politicians are simply too lazy and irresponsible on taxes and spending
Comments on Kirsten Lawson "ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr supports calls for a higher Medicare levy", 21/07/2015
Why the politicians always talk about to raise more revenue to meet an increasing costs of health and have no mention of having the health costs under control? Further, why don't they examine whether the existing spending on health is used in the most proper and appropriate ways? Are they really well used? Isn't there any way to improve the effectiveness and efficient aspects of health spending to use less and do more?
It seems that many politicians are very lazy and irresponsible to the electorate, given that they only look at spending more and the easy way out by raising taxes.
Furthermore, rather than courageous or intelligent, Mr Baird should be see as coward and silly, given the fact that the states and territories should stand up against the commonwealth for the latter's arbitrary change to funding to the former.
Politicians should not given lazy, easy and tricky ways to raise taxes. It is time for them to be much more accountable, prudent and responsible for spending each and every dollar of taxpayers' monney.
Why the politicians always talk about to raise more revenue to meet an increasing costs of health and have no mention of having the health costs under control? Further, why don't they examine whether the existing spending on health is used in the most proper and appropriate ways? Are they really well used? Isn't there any way to improve the effectiveness and efficient aspects of health spending to use less and do more?
It seems that many politicians are very lazy and irresponsible to the electorate, given that they only look at spending more and the easy way out by raising taxes.
Furthermore, rather than courageous or intelligent, Mr Baird should be see as coward and silly, given the fact that the states and territories should stand up against the commonwealth for the latter's arbitrary change to funding to the former.
Politicians should not given lazy, easy and tricky ways to raise taxes. It is time for them to be much more accountable, prudent and responsible for spending each and every dollar of taxpayers' monney.
2015-07-17
Business leaders need to engage with politician more effectively than lecturing them
Comments on Michelle Grattan "Grattan on Friday: Our system is being consumed by the politics of demolition", 17/07/2015
It does not help much or have much an effect for a business leader to lecture the nation's political leaders in the following way (I quote from the article):
"On Thursday BCA president Catherine Livingstone called the politicians out, when she declared that “yesterday marked a low point for political leadership in Australia”.
“Within hours of the treasurer outlining a compelling case for the need for fundamental tax reform and rebalancing of the tax mix, both major parties began ruling out key elements of sensible tax reform, including changes to the GST,” she said.
“Our political representatives are elected and paid by the community to implement policies that will best serve the country. Their leadership responsibility is to ensure that there is a constructive, well-informed debate, leading to implementable outcomes; it is not to undermine the debate in the cause of party political positioning.
“Leadership requires being open and honest with the community about the challenges we are facing. It requires the energy and conviction to take on difficult and complex reform imperatives.”
Political leaders are elected so they are accountable for the electorate, not as business leaders they are not necessarily democratically chosen. Business leaders don't have those political capitals gained from the electorate as political leaders have. As a result, business leaders need to find better ways to engage political leaders in an effective manner. Otherwise, it is futile on than part.
No matter whatever the weaknesses the current political system, the mechanism of the political leaders operate in the constant media scrutiny, there is ultimate accountability for the politicians, that is they have to face the electorate in an election.
It does not help much or have much an effect for a business leader to lecture the nation's political leaders in the following way (I quote from the article):
"On Thursday BCA president Catherine Livingstone called the politicians out, when she declared that “yesterday marked a low point for political leadership in Australia”.
“Within hours of the treasurer outlining a compelling case for the need for fundamental tax reform and rebalancing of the tax mix, both major parties began ruling out key elements of sensible tax reform, including changes to the GST,” she said.
“Our political representatives are elected and paid by the community to implement policies that will best serve the country. Their leadership responsibility is to ensure that there is a constructive, well-informed debate, leading to implementable outcomes; it is not to undermine the debate in the cause of party political positioning.
“Leadership requires being open and honest with the community about the challenges we are facing. It requires the energy and conviction to take on difficult and complex reform imperatives.”
Political leaders are elected so they are accountable for the electorate, not as business leaders they are not necessarily democratically chosen. Business leaders don't have those political capitals gained from the electorate as political leaders have. As a result, business leaders need to find better ways to engage political leaders in an effective manner. Otherwise, it is futile on than part.
No matter whatever the weaknesses the current political system, the mechanism of the political leaders operate in the constant media scrutiny, there is ultimate accountability for the politicians, that is they have to face the electorate in an election.
2011-12-16
Huge pay rise for politicians a disgrace and worst for the tribunal!
Comments on news.com.au “Tweet deal - social media blamed for politicans' huge pay rise”, http://www.news.com.au/national/massive-pay-rise-for-ps-chiefs/story-e6frfkvr-1226223538200#ixzz1gdoGPf4D, 16/12/2011
It's a disgrace, isn't it?
The tribunal has performed some of the worst acts in recent times, first was the statuary appointees, high level bureaucrats and now is the politicians, with increases in their pay by as much as 63% in the above case and possibly more.
One has to wonder whether its doing affect the pay of the top persons at the tribunal or not, presumably they are part of the beneficiaries of these deals.
Does the tribunal work with any budgetary constraints in its mind when they give so large pay rises to those people, as the government asks for 4% efficiency dividend from the Australian public services?
Presumably there is no budgetary constraints at all to the tribunal.
This is a highly unsatisfactory situation and it mus be changed or stopped!
2011-02-09
Not OTS but better governance by government and politicians needed
Comments on Ziggy Switkowski “Take politics out of assessment”, 9/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/take-politics-out-of-assessment/story-e6frg6zo-1226002437243
While it may be attempting to establish a similar organisation to OTA model, we should realise that there is a significant degree of public goods nature of those agencies and it may not necessary to have such an agency in Australia after all. One can use those public goods when considering issues.
You have government departments. You have Productivity Commission. You have CSRIO and the alike. There are enough bureaucrats to do the things that Ziggy Switkowski argues for.
You don't need to inflate the bureaucratic agencies even further to make the government decision making more efficient!
The government has enough resources to make the right decisions if it so chooses. The problem is that many governments just don’t want to make the best decisions for the nation but for their own interests!
We have the Productivity Commission, but the government has chosen not to have the NBN studied! Was that because of lack of resources? Definitely not!
The real issue is to make the politicians work in the nation’s interests, not in their own interests!
How can we achieve that? That is what both politicians and the public should focus their attentions on.
We need to find better ways.
While it may be attempting to establish a similar organisation to OTA model, we should realise that there is a significant degree of public goods nature of those agencies and it may not necessary to have such an agency in Australia after all. One can use those public goods when considering issues.
You have government departments. You have Productivity Commission. You have CSRIO and the alike. There are enough bureaucrats to do the things that Ziggy Switkowski argues for.
You don't need to inflate the bureaucratic agencies even further to make the government decision making more efficient!
The government has enough resources to make the right decisions if it so chooses. The problem is that many governments just don’t want to make the best decisions for the nation but for their own interests!
We have the Productivity Commission, but the government has chosen not to have the NBN studied! Was that because of lack of resources? Definitely not!
The real issue is to make the politicians work in the nation’s interests, not in their own interests!
How can we achieve that? That is what both politicians and the public should focus their attentions on.
We need to find better ways.
2010-08-10
Swan's unique stuff of mathematics
Comments on Peter Hartcher “Role reversal from Swan and Hockey”, 10/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/role-reversal-from-swan-and-hockey-20100809-11u1w.html?posted=sucessful
The argument of federal debt to peak at 6% GDP is equivalent to "which is like someone who earns $100,000 borrowing $6000", demonstrates another simple mathematics by the unfortunate Treasurer, because the federal government does not own 100% GDP: to be correct - what it can take is only the tax part.
How can the Treasurer make this sort of arithmetic? No wonder the federal government has been plagued with wastes in its programs with such a man as Treasurer.
He has been acting as if he owned every cent of the nation's GDP! Bet, bet and more and bet using others' money.
Whose money? Taxpayers, of course!
Is this another stuff learnt from primary or secondary school, in Australia?
Or is it because of logic and numbers as opposed to simple numbers?
It seems that is really some stuff hard to understand.
Laughable stuff? You bet!
The argument of federal debt to peak at 6% GDP is equivalent to "which is like someone who earns $100,000 borrowing $6000", demonstrates another simple mathematics by the unfortunate Treasurer, because the federal government does not own 100% GDP: to be correct - what it can take is only the tax part.
How can the Treasurer make this sort of arithmetic? No wonder the federal government has been plagued with wastes in its programs with such a man as Treasurer.
He has been acting as if he owned every cent of the nation's GDP! Bet, bet and more and bet using others' money.
Whose money? Taxpayers, of course!
Is this another stuff learnt from primary or secondary school, in Australia?
Or is it because of logic and numbers as opposed to simple numbers?
It seems that is really some stuff hard to understand.
Laughable stuff? You bet!
2010-04-14
Raise politicians' pay to attract more talented people
Comments on Peter Costello “Exit Turnbull from a political stage littered with underachievers”, 14/04/2010, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/exit-turnbull-from-a-political-stage-littered-with-underachievers-20100413-s7dz.html?posted=sucessful
Costello has a good point on politicians pay and superannuation.
The last change to their superannuation was much too excessive, driven by political popularism when Howard felt threatened by Latham's.
However, an increase in the pay to politicians may attract more business minded people who may contribute to a better economy and make more common sense as compared to purely political driven people with little business experience.
Costello has a good point on politicians pay and superannuation.
The last change to their superannuation was much too excessive, driven by political popularism when Howard felt threatened by Latham's.
However, an increase in the pay to politicians may attract more business minded people who may contribute to a better economy and make more common sense as compared to purely political driven people with little business experience.
2010-02-01
The less one expect of pollies, the better it can often be
Comments on Glenn Milne “High or low, the road looks rough”, 1/02/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/high-or-low-the-road-looks-rough/story-e6frg6zo-1225825238057
Good to see the pollies are back to work, nominally of course.
They are talking again.
Their purely talking can often be better than they did something, because they often did the wrong thing with the wrong results and effects!
Good to see the pollies are back to work, nominally of course.
They are talking again.
Their purely talking can often be better than they did something, because they often did the wrong thing with the wrong results and effects!
2009-06-26
An equally incompetent pair - Australian federal politics
Comments on Alan Kohler “Driven to distraction”, 26/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Driven-to-distraction-pd20090626-TCSWT?OpenDocument&src=sph
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkably poor performances over the last 6-8 months.
While fine points may be get easily lost in a political debate, the government cannot be and will not be strong in simply saying that its defence that its stimulus worked.
No one will argue that fiscal stimulus will not have any effects on the economy. The real question is how effective it is.
The government handed out cash to the tune of more than $10 billion in November last year. While large part of that may have been saved by the end of the first quarter this year, some of it had been spent and was counted as part of the consumer expenditure in the GDP.
Yes, that extra expenditure may have helped prevent the GDP went backward. But that does not mean the government's cash handouts were a good and responsible fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and protect jobs.
Just to argue the point, if a government minister gave $1 billion to his or her closest mate and ask him to give half of that back to him or her as kick back and spend a quarter of that to buy anything.
In this hypothetical scenario, $0.25 billion would have been spent in the economy, thus increase expenditure and GDP. Because of that, the stimulus worked, according to the line the government has been using. But would that be a good fiscal policy to stimulate the economy?
Were the government’s cash handouts very different from this hypothetic scenario? Is it that hard for people how weak the government's defence is? By the same token, it is not too difficult either to see how ineffective the opposition has been.
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkably poor performances over the last 6-8 months.
While fine points may be get easily lost in a political debate, the government cannot be and will not be strong in simply saying that its defence that its stimulus worked.
No one will argue that fiscal stimulus will not have any effects on the economy. The real question is how effective it is.
The government handed out cash to the tune of more than $10 billion in November last year. While large part of that may have been saved by the end of the first quarter this year, some of it had been spent and was counted as part of the consumer expenditure in the GDP.
Yes, that extra expenditure may have helped prevent the GDP went backward. But that does not mean the government's cash handouts were a good and responsible fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and protect jobs.
Just to argue the point, if a government minister gave $1 billion to his or her closest mate and ask him to give half of that back to him or her as kick back and spend a quarter of that to buy anything.
In this hypothetical scenario, $0.25 billion would have been spent in the economy, thus increase expenditure and GDP. Because of that, the stimulus worked, according to the line the government has been using. But would that be a good fiscal policy to stimulate the economy?
Were the government’s cash handouts very different from this hypothetic scenario? Is it that hard for people how weak the government's defence is? By the same token, it is not too difficult either to see how ineffective the opposition has been.
2009-06-25
Swan's selective use of IMF report
Comments on the report “Swan welcomes IMF assessment”, 25/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Swan-welcomes-IMF-assessment-pd20090625-TBTTF?OpenDocument
This is another poor and desperate show by a desperate man the Treasurer.
Swan selected what was good for him while avoid what was bad for conveniently. For example, the following sentence is quoted from the IMF report: "Output will likely remain below potential for a number of years, reducing core inflation."
What does that statement by IMF suggest of his budget projection of above trend growth of 4.5% from 2011-12? The Treasury growth forecast has been questioned and criticised by some economists and commentators in Australia. Why didn’t Swan mention that IMF indicates his growth projection is unrealistic?
An interesting and awkward selective performance by an incompetent and politically seriously wounded Treasurer who should resign over the OzCar affairs, but stubbornly refused to do so helped by a mistake by the opposition leader in his tactics.
While it was lucky for Swan for now, it is bad for the nation and the country. The taxpayers will suffer more from his incompetence in managing the economy and the government budget. It remains the case that the earlier this incompetent Treasurer resigns, the better for him, the government, Labour, taxpayers, the nation and the country.
This is another poor and desperate show by a desperate man the Treasurer.
Swan selected what was good for him while avoid what was bad for conveniently. For example, the following sentence is quoted from the IMF report: "Output will likely remain below potential for a number of years, reducing core inflation."
What does that statement by IMF suggest of his budget projection of above trend growth of 4.5% from 2011-12? The Treasury growth forecast has been questioned and criticised by some economists and commentators in Australia. Why didn’t Swan mention that IMF indicates his growth projection is unrealistic?
An interesting and awkward selective performance by an incompetent and politically seriously wounded Treasurer who should resign over the OzCar affairs, but stubbornly refused to do so helped by a mistake by the opposition leader in his tactics.
While it was lucky for Swan for now, it is bad for the nation and the country. The taxpayers will suffer more from his incompetence in managing the economy and the government budget. It remains the case that the earlier this incompetent Treasurer resigns, the better for him, the government, Labour, taxpayers, the nation and the country.
2009-06-17
Costello political legacy
Comments on Paul Kelly “The great contender”, 17/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25646978-7583,00.html
I am not a liberal fan by background, but I think Costello has really done a remarkable job as the most successful and longest serving Treasurer. His leadership as Treasurer enhanced the welfare of the nation enormously and gifted the Rudd government with an excellent fiscal position of fiscal surplus and net government assets to weather the global recession.
It was a pity that he failed to become the Prime Minster. He would have been a better PM, given his attitude in a number of important issues, like the apology, climate change and Kyoto, the Republic, and etc. He is a progressive liberal and not as too conservative in the liberal ranks.
Howard overstayed his Prime Ministership that did do good both to himself and Costello - an unhappy ending to both, as well as for the nation probably. That is a historical lesson for many politicians both current and to come. Hope Rudd is the first one to learn from that, although it is still early days of the Rudd government.
I am not a liberal fan by background, but I think Costello has really done a remarkable job as the most successful and longest serving Treasurer. His leadership as Treasurer enhanced the welfare of the nation enormously and gifted the Rudd government with an excellent fiscal position of fiscal surplus and net government assets to weather the global recession.
It was a pity that he failed to become the Prime Minster. He would have been a better PM, given his attitude in a number of important issues, like the apology, climate change and Kyoto, the Republic, and etc. He is a progressive liberal and not as too conservative in the liberal ranks.
Howard overstayed his Prime Ministership that did do good both to himself and Costello - an unhappy ending to both, as well as for the nation probably. That is a historical lesson for many politicians both current and to come. Hope Rudd is the first one to learn from that, although it is still early days of the Rudd government.
2009-06-16
Rudd's approach to politics commendable
News reports today that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd might appoint Peter Costello to serve for Australia in the future if an opportunity comes. The PM also said that there should be a change in approaches to politics when individual talents are concerned. It is nice to see good politics at the federal level in Australia indeed.
This reflects Kevin Rudd's value of talents, a true remarkable character. It also echoes US president Obama's approach to appointing his administration staff using some people from Republicans.
It is a wonderful development in politics. It maximises outputs for given resources of a nation. It is good to governance, to public affairs and national welfare. Both the president and the Prime Minster should be commended for their non-partisan approaches.
This reflects Kevin Rudd's value of talents, a true remarkable character. It also echoes US president Obama's approach to appointing his administration staff using some people from Republicans.
It is a wonderful development in politics. It maximises outputs for given resources of a nation. It is good to governance, to public affairs and national welfare. Both the president and the Prime Minster should be commended for their non-partisan approaches.
Rudd's approach to Costello is commendable politics
News reports today that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd might appoint Peter Costello to serve for Australia in the future if an opportunity comes. The PM also said that there should be a change in approaches to politics when individual talents are concerned. It is nice to see good politics at the federal level in Australia indeed.
This reflects Kevin Rudd's value of talents, a true remarkable character. It also echoes US president Obama's approach to appointing his administration staff using some people from Republicans.
It is a wonderful development in politics. It maximises outputs for given resources of a nation. It is good to governance, to public affairs and national welfare. Both the president and the Prime Minster should be commended for their non-partisan approaches.
This reflects Kevin Rudd's value of talents, a true remarkable character. It also echoes US president Obama's approach to appointing his administration staff using some people from Republicans.
It is a wonderful development in politics. It maximises outputs for given resources of a nation. It is good to governance, to public affairs and national welfare. Both the president and the Prime Minster should be commended for their non-partisan approaches.
2009-05-16
The raping of a nation by politicians
Everyone except those themselves would be amazed by the speed of change by politicians for political expedience, sometimes for good but mostly for bad. The Swan/Rudd budget 2009 presents another perfect and notorious example.
Conventionally, budget papers contain detailed estimates of the economy for the current and next financial years, then assuming for the following three years to grow at its trend growth. This has been the case for many years and under governments of both political persuasions.
In their 2009 budget, they changed the conventional method used in preparing economic forecast into the outer years, just for the convenience to make their budget deficit look less bad. Instead of making detailed estimates for the first two years, they have now just made for three years. That was not too bad, but that was not their main purpose this time. They also changed the assumed growth for the rest of the five forecasting years. Rather than using the conventional way of assuming the economy would grow at its trend growth rate of about 3 per cent, they jacked up the assumed growth rate to above the trend growth at 4.5 per cent. Wait, that was not the end of their change, they also extended the above trend growth into further future years in their show of their strategy to bring down budget deficits and to eventually to surplus.
Yes they provided reasons for their doing that. The main blame was, of course, the current worst global recession, as they had always done over the past few months. According to them, what else could that be? In their logic, as we have heard over and over again, “the (only) alternative was ‘do nothing’ and that would have been much worse.” How clever that was to fool people!
Another reason was the same approach of using above trend growth was also used in the early 1990s. Here, extraordinarily, they again conveniently left out who had used that trick at that time except the time of its use. But it is not too difficult for one to find out it was the time when the Labor was in government. Again, they concealed that useful information for their convenience! Otherwise, they would have embarrassed themselves and reminded people of not only Labor’s economic record, but more importantly also Labor’ was the one that had changed the conventional. What a coincidence!
Further, they have often tended to use the public services as their excuse too. When it was obvious to the public that their changes were not right or appropriate, they would say it is the fine public servants they have recommended and done that, so they could conveniently hide behind the strong shield of public services. If anyone dare to question their changes, they are quick to accuse the questioner is attacking or undermining the integrity of the public services - in this particular case, the Treasury. Of course it is convenient for them never to disagree with or question the “fine public services” at such a particular time. How fine those services are that those people should all perhaps be promoted!
So much on Labor’s changing conventions. Their main political rival/opponent, the Liberals were not much better, unfortunately. It seems that is a disease of politicians of all persuasions. To just confine my examination on economics side and on numbers, Costello/Howard during their rein in government also had spectacular record of changing the conventions for their political convenience.
Two examples will suffice. One is how to classify a tax by levels of government. They said the GST, for example, was not a federal tax but a State tax, contrary to ABS statistics and international conventions. Their excuse was that the GST was given to the States for their free use according to their own choices. That is true, but that did not and does not and will not change which level of government’s tax it is.
Another example was after a few years of using accrual in their presentation, they changed their way of presenting budget outcomes in accrual terms after the introduction of the accrual accounting standard in government finance accounting a few years before back. It occurred at a time when the budget outcome was looking much better in cash than in accrual accounting. But at that time they had put aside their argument why the accrual accounting was better than the cash one when they introduced the change to the accounting standard.
All the above examples have been so visible and they could not hide them under the carpet. How many of their doings are counter conventions merely for their political expedience? For that no one knows. Of course for any of such doings they were unable to hide, they always spined around so skilfully to make them look good with an underlying message: you stupid we were doing this for your good! They always said what they did was for better. But better for who?
No wonder so many people have got so disillusioned by politicians! But perhaps the skilful displays by politicians each time when they do something out of the ordinary should always be admired by generations to come. After all, that is a trade, for better or for worse!
Conventionally, budget papers contain detailed estimates of the economy for the current and next financial years, then assuming for the following three years to grow at its trend growth. This has been the case for many years and under governments of both political persuasions.
In their 2009 budget, they changed the conventional method used in preparing economic forecast into the outer years, just for the convenience to make their budget deficit look less bad. Instead of making detailed estimates for the first two years, they have now just made for three years. That was not too bad, but that was not their main purpose this time. They also changed the assumed growth for the rest of the five forecasting years. Rather than using the conventional way of assuming the economy would grow at its trend growth rate of about 3 per cent, they jacked up the assumed growth rate to above the trend growth at 4.5 per cent. Wait, that was not the end of their change, they also extended the above trend growth into further future years in their show of their strategy to bring down budget deficits and to eventually to surplus.
Yes they provided reasons for their doing that. The main blame was, of course, the current worst global recession, as they had always done over the past few months. According to them, what else could that be? In their logic, as we have heard over and over again, “the (only) alternative was ‘do nothing’ and that would have been much worse.” How clever that was to fool people!
Another reason was the same approach of using above trend growth was also used in the early 1990s. Here, extraordinarily, they again conveniently left out who had used that trick at that time except the time of its use. But it is not too difficult for one to find out it was the time when the Labor was in government. Again, they concealed that useful information for their convenience! Otherwise, they would have embarrassed themselves and reminded people of not only Labor’s economic record, but more importantly also Labor’ was the one that had changed the conventional. What a coincidence!
Further, they have often tended to use the public services as their excuse too. When it was obvious to the public that their changes were not right or appropriate, they would say it is the fine public servants they have recommended and done that, so they could conveniently hide behind the strong shield of public services. If anyone dare to question their changes, they are quick to accuse the questioner is attacking or undermining the integrity of the public services - in this particular case, the Treasury. Of course it is convenient for them never to disagree with or question the “fine public services” at such a particular time. How fine those services are that those people should all perhaps be promoted!
So much on Labor’s changing conventions. Their main political rival/opponent, the Liberals were not much better, unfortunately. It seems that is a disease of politicians of all persuasions. To just confine my examination on economics side and on numbers, Costello/Howard during their rein in government also had spectacular record of changing the conventions for their political convenience.
Two examples will suffice. One is how to classify a tax by levels of government. They said the GST, for example, was not a federal tax but a State tax, contrary to ABS statistics and international conventions. Their excuse was that the GST was given to the States for their free use according to their own choices. That is true, but that did not and does not and will not change which level of government’s tax it is.
Another example was after a few years of using accrual in their presentation, they changed their way of presenting budget outcomes in accrual terms after the introduction of the accrual accounting standard in government finance accounting a few years before back. It occurred at a time when the budget outcome was looking much better in cash than in accrual accounting. But at that time they had put aside their argument why the accrual accounting was better than the cash one when they introduced the change to the accounting standard.
All the above examples have been so visible and they could not hide them under the carpet. How many of their doings are counter conventions merely for their political expedience? For that no one knows. Of course for any of such doings they were unable to hide, they always spined around so skilfully to make them look good with an underlying message: you stupid we were doing this for your good! They always said what they did was for better. But better for who?
No wonder so many people have got so disillusioned by politicians! But perhaps the skilful displays by politicians each time when they do something out of the ordinary should always be admired by generations to come. After all, that is a trade, for better or for worse!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
