Comments on Matthew Franklin “PM Julia Gillard promises reform wave”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-promises-reform-wave/story-fn59niix-1225937893280
The government's NBN has done enough damage to Labor and the government's credibility on reforms, productivity, and Gillard's announcement of rail link in Sydney during the election campaign and her now saying "A rigorous, disciplined drive for reform has to inform all our economic decision-making," and "I want to take the market-based tools that have made our financial and industrial capital so much more productive" and etc.
What about her policy on the run, including the citizens' assembly during the election and now being dumped? No carbon tax during the election and now not ruling out it? Her minsitry names fiasco?
So far, it has not been looking too goo d for Gillard.
How can people believe anything they say?
Politics is hard, but it shouldn’t be that hypocritical and lack of integrity!
2010-10-13
An independent national fiscal institution needed
Comments on Peter van Onselen “Political debate ignores role of debt in development”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/political-debate-ignores-role-of-debt-in-development/story-e6frg8zx-1225937860456
The current political and institutional arrangements are the main source of the problem you have identified in this post.
It seems there should be a rebalance between political government and more independent institutions that have adequate resources and the capacities to look into longer term and policies, as well as the evaluation of current and past policies for their alignment with longer terms issues.
What that means is we should consider and establish an independent institution similar to RBA in terms of independence from the day of the government to look after fiscal policy matters and policy options and effects.
It is a new thinking but has been long overdue.
PS: politics in western countries including Australia are mostly focused on shorter terms due to the political processes and the election cycles. That is a fundamental weakness with the current state of democracy.
To balance that and to take account the importance of both democracy and longer term national interest, there should be some institutions which look after long term issues and policies and which are independent of the government and politics which are of short term in nature.
The independent judicial system in western countries is a good example. A number of independent central banks in terms of monetary policies are another.
The current political and institutional arrangements are the main source of the problem you have identified in this post.
It seems there should be a rebalance between political government and more independent institutions that have adequate resources and the capacities to look into longer term and policies, as well as the evaluation of current and past policies for their alignment with longer terms issues.
What that means is we should consider and establish an independent institution similar to RBA in terms of independence from the day of the government to look after fiscal policy matters and policy options and effects.
It is a new thinking but has been long overdue.
PS: politics in western countries including Australia are mostly focused on shorter terms due to the political processes and the election cycles. That is a fundamental weakness with the current state of democracy.
To balance that and to take account the importance of both democracy and longer term national interest, there should be some institutions which look after long term issues and policies and which are independent of the government and politics which are of short term in nature.
The independent judicial system in western countries is a good example. A number of independent central banks in terms of monetary policies are another.
Lessons from government past failures on climate policy
Comments on Greg Combet “Put a price on a cleaner future”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/put-a-price-on-a-cleaner-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225937875487
Greg, some points to consider for lessons:
Government can get the price wrong or unnecessarily higher than it should or could be at taxpayers’ expenses, so it is not just a matter of a price. We need the best and lowest price to be costly effectively and efficient!
Labor tradition of tough reforms – what about the abandon of the ETS in last term?
Climate change: is the science a complete certainty?
The CPRS: government needs to consider why both the coalition and the Greens opposed it. Further was the CPRS a good or a flawed approach? It can’t and shouldn’t simply think any scheme is good!
There are more points the government should consider.
Greg, some points to consider for lessons:
Government can get the price wrong or unnecessarily higher than it should or could be at taxpayers’ expenses, so it is not just a matter of a price. We need the best and lowest price to be costly effectively and efficient!
Labor tradition of tough reforms – what about the abandon of the ETS in last term?
Climate change: is the science a complete certainty?
The CPRS: government needs to consider why both the coalition and the Greens opposed it. Further was the CPRS a good or a flawed approach? It can’t and shouldn’t simply think any scheme is good!
There are more points the government should consider.
Government and taxpayers need vigilance against special interest companies/groups
Comments on James Massola “NBN is financially viable, says Optus”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/nbn-is-financially-viable-says-optus/story-e6frg9hx-1225938048763
This is a ridiculous and shamelessly naked act of self interest from a special interest company!
How can Optus know the financial viability of the NBN?
Companies sometimes even don't know their own financial viability, let along others'!
Optus obliviously will benefit from government spending on NBN, even though it is taxpayers who will pay for it.
This is a ridiculous and shamelessly naked act of self interest from a special interest company!
How can Optus know the financial viability of the NBN?
Companies sometimes even don't know their own financial viability, let along others'!
Optus obliviously will benefit from government spending on NBN, even though it is taxpayers who will pay for it.
2010-10-10
Climate change policy key to Gillard's governing
Comments on Paul Kelly “Gillard's main fight lies ahead”, 9/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillards-main-fight-lies-ahead/story-e6frg6zo-1225936191039
Undoubtedly Gillard will face more difficult times ahead in governing and in being effective and reformative.
However, on carbon price, it should not be too difficult for Gillard to design and implement.
The key is revenue neutrality and with "people" as opposed to big business in mind.
If it is revenue neutral and any proceeds go back to people for their rights to good environment and climate in this context, a carbon price (more likely tax at the moment with the Greens in the driver seat) will not be as taxing to most people as the CPRS designed by the Rudd government.
This is because there will not be too much of the revenue spent on business subsidies under the pressure of business lobby.
Further, the revenue will not be siphoned to government pocket.
It will all go to people who will have to pay for the tax and switch to higher cost energies for a while.
If the majority of the electorate is with the government, then what should it be fearful for?
So, if the government is not greedy for itself to get the revenue and is fair to people, a carbon price/tax should be an easy matter for it to introduce.
Of course, trade neutral is also important to sell it to business and the public at large.
If Gillard can be successful in climate change policy, she will have achieved a lot in economic reforms. Then it is not too difficult to deal with others.
Undoubtedly Gillard will face more difficult times ahead in governing and in being effective and reformative.
However, on carbon price, it should not be too difficult for Gillard to design and implement.
The key is revenue neutrality and with "people" as opposed to big business in mind.
If it is revenue neutral and any proceeds go back to people for their rights to good environment and climate in this context, a carbon price (more likely tax at the moment with the Greens in the driver seat) will not be as taxing to most people as the CPRS designed by the Rudd government.
This is because there will not be too much of the revenue spent on business subsidies under the pressure of business lobby.
Further, the revenue will not be siphoned to government pocket.
It will all go to people who will have to pay for the tax and switch to higher cost energies for a while.
If the majority of the electorate is with the government, then what should it be fearful for?
So, if the government is not greedy for itself to get the revenue and is fair to people, a carbon price/tax should be an easy matter for it to introduce.
Of course, trade neutral is also important to sell it to business and the public at large.
If Gillard can be successful in climate change policy, she will have achieved a lot in economic reforms. Then it is not too difficult to deal with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
