Budget blowout on the cards

A report has predicted that the Federal Budget will sink a further $14 billion into deficit

Budget blowout on the cards

Independent analysis by Deloitte Access Economics has predicted that the Federal Budget will sink a further $14 billion into deficit in the next financial year.

The Chinese commodity retreat was the most significant cause of the predicted deficit, but the report also made mention of the domestic political landscape making it difficult for any cost saving legislation to pass the Senate. Nor does that the Coalition has locked in several high cost spending initiatives, from when the Budget looked healthier.

Taking all issues into consideration, Deloitte has estimated that the budget deficit this year (2014/15) will be $49.5 billion – $5.5 billion greater than predicted and $1 billion more than last year’s (2013/14) deficit of $48.5 billion.

The news doesn’t get any better, with Deloitte predicting that despite the Coalition Government stating in the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) that the deficit would be $31 billion in 2015/16, it looks to be facing a $14.1 billion blowout.

“2015-16 looks like it has been written by Stephen King and painted by Edvard Munch,” the report said.

It also added that wage growth is “limping” and that this would “tear a hole in the Budget”.

However, despite a predicted growing deficit, ex-Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson declares there is no budget crisis. In his first interview since leaving the Treasury in December 2014, Mr Parkinson, told the Australian Financial Review that the last thing the Federal Government should try and do is “race back to surplus”.

Mr Parkinson also states that there isn’t, and never was, a fiscal crisis and that while the government does face a decade of deficits, it’s dangerous to simply focus on surpluses and deficits, as this only serves to distort the political debate.

“What we really need, and the thing that has stood us in good stead, is we've taken a medium-term approach to fiscal policy. The ability to lay out a credible, medium-term pathway back to surplus is absolutely central. Once you can do that, you can have the sorts of discussions about how we actually achieve that, what are the right things for us to do.

"It's not a crisis, it's never been a crisis. The last thing you'd want to do is start racing back to surplus in the next couple of years: the economy is growing below trend and will continue to do so,” he said.

“The important thing is having a credible pathway that gets you back to surplus, not off in the never-never: strategy that says we are going to do this each year over a period of time and where the markets can see it's credible, then they will give us more scope,” he added.

Read more about the Deloitte Access Economics report, at ABC.net.au

Read Mr Parkinson’s interview at AFR.com

Opinion: Should we be scared of a deficit?

In just over one week Treasurer Joe Hockey will deliver his second Federal Budget and in the words of Mr Abbott, it will be “measured, responsible and fair”.

Having already ruled out changes to superannuation and tax, the options for a budget that will address the growing deficit seem limited. While Mr Abbott and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have both refused to confirm whether next Tuesday’s budget will be used to scrap the proposed changes to pension indexation announced in the 2014/15 Budget, it does indeed look as though this will be the case. In order to address the associated loss of savings, it looks likely that an announcement to double the taper rate for part Age Pensions could be on the cards. But such a measure will do little to address the growing Budget deficit and will not be popular with those affected by the change.

Speaking to reporters in Sydney on Saturday, Mr Abbott seemed to predict a much more positive budget than last year, stating, "It's a budget that will be good for jobs, growth and opportunity." He also took the opportunity to quash rumours of a possible early double dissolution election, "I should say it is my firm intention to deliver on the mandate that the public gave us and when the public elected us, they expected us to govern for three years and that is absolutely what we intend to do," he said.

Over the next week there will be many rumours of what will be included in the 2015/16 Federal Budget, but it’s clear that the government is keeping close to its chest what will be announced. And perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and consider whether a budget in deficit is such a terrible thing. Or is it more important to ensure that those living on an Age Pension don’t have their already inadequate income further reduced?

What do you expect from next week’s budget? Is returning to surplus as soon as possible the most important factor? And if so, which taxes should be raised and which benefits reduced? Or should we accept that it may be necessary and even advisable to run a deficit as the economy slows? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    4th May 2015
    10:07am
    What deficit? Bill says everything is fine. If anyone can understand what he said...good on you.

    From The Australian in January this year.

    "Let’s get some more facts on the table, the facts cited by Parkinson in a speech last April. Health spending will rise from $65bn in nominal terms to $116bn in a decade unless action is taken. Pension payments will increase by 6 per cent a year adding another $39bn to the bill in 10 years’ time. The net cost of the NDIS to commonwealth taxpayers will add up to $64.5bn by 2023-24.

    “Mr Shorten,” asked Leigh Sales last month, “when are you going to start acting like an alternative prime minister and face up to some of these economic challenges?”

    Shorten’s prevaricating and largely nonsensical answers to Sales’s persistent questioning are worth watching in full. In the meantime, here is the abridged version, for which we are indebted to Bill Leak, who thought them worth including in what might be the longest speech bubble in Australian cartoon history:

    “We’ve got to go for growth, and the way you go for growth is you spend money … if you’ve got growth you’re creating national wealth then a lot of pressure comes off the budget so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to built the infrastructure of the future … you’ve got to have the skills and training of the future … it’s about the future … if you don’t know where you’re going any road will get you there.”

    Thanks Mr Shorten, we’ll get back to you on that.
    RJ
    4th May 2015
    10:59am
    Abbott would have us believe that there is a budget crisis and so we all have to pay to fix it. Increase taxes and make our lives harder. Wow, what a brilliant solution. Others like yourself jump on the bandwagon and suggest that they are on the right track.
    What about cutting back on government spending. This Federal Govt is very good at spending money and increasing the deficit.
    What about addressing the unemployment issue?
    What about some innovative ideas to stimulate the economy and business?
    This is a lot harder that just bumping up taxes I know, but a smart, forward thinking government would do it.
    More profitable and thriving businesses means more employment which means more spending which means more money coming into government.
    This is what needs to happen.
    Deficits would disappear in no time.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    11:05am
    Well - the issue is how the current government is handling things and why - we can safely leave Silent Bill for our next session, once he gets a foot in the door of government. As Opposition leader he has no obligation to push his ideas and policies forward until he gets close to an election, though it is good to see Sales give it to him the same as she did to Abbott's crew in the same situation.

    Personally, I have zero faith in either side doing anything of merit, and I've long stated that policy directions of government (aside from parties) have been fatally flawed now for decades.

    BOTH need to divest themselves of their puerile university quadrangle and schoolyard ideologies and get into the real world, and realise that all their high-flying ideas for setting right the wrongs of the world.... INJURE countless people without reason.

    You see that clearly in the imbalances and growing divides in this country (self-promotes again - and shameslessly):-

    https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/money-divides

    .. and there are many deliberately built-in divides and discriminations that have come into play in the past thirty years or so. All of these need rectification NOW.

    Simple mention of 'wages growth' - a prime area that provides tax, not only income but elsewhere through puchasing power, at a time of direct attack on wage rates as the panacea doe all ills and the deliberate reduction of a huge percentage of the workforce to the perpetual twilight of imminent poverty at any stroke of the pen - shows very clearly where governments need to go.

    They need to start working out how they forked it, and how to fix it, in terms of areas of genuine industry that actually employ people. Long term strategic thinking on genuine infrastructure and not more of their feed-your-mates 'privatisation' rubbish would be a start.
    bebby
    4th May 2015
    12:04pm
    Radish, move on, Bill Shorten is the Opposition leader, not there to sort out the mess this present mob are involving the country in
    wally
    4th May 2015
    12:39pm
    Sorry bebby, were you born in 2013 or do you have selective amnesia? You are blaming Tony Abbott for the financial debit mess that he was left with after six years of Labor mismanagement. Howard and Costello, you may (or may not) recall left Australia with Australia's finances in credit. After Rudd belatedly got the boot in 2013, Australia was up to its eyeballs in debt to the Chinese.

    You are, however, correct that Shorten is Opposition Leader and not there to sort out the financial mess Labor left Australia in. But he does not want to help Abbott sort out the mess, which makes Shorten part of the problem, not the solution.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    1:49pm
    I agree that Labor is part of the problem - but the current revenue/outgoing/unemployment/poverty for many problem has been building for thirty plus years now - and nobody seemed to notice.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    1:53pm
    bebby, you must have just come out of an 8 year coma. What is the last thing you remember? Do you recall anything at all about Rudd, Shorten, Swan, Evans, Conroy, Bowen, Emerson, Combet, Gillard? Any of those names mean anything to you?
    Kato
    4th May 2015
    2:21pm
    You left out Howard Costello Fraser etc. This current Government is the largest spending Government of any Liberal or Labour Govt of the last two decades.
    And don't forget Howard and Costello controlled government when Australia was in a resources boom. and what were we left with. Hospital's run down schools run down infrastructure run down. a future fund set up to fund public service retirement funds a great legacy for Australia as a whole' no not really.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    2:57pm
    Kato, the record spending is due to Labor legislating 86% of budget spending. It's locked in Eddie! Only the Senate can unlock it and they are prepared to see Australia have a recession as long as it is not them in government when it happens. I have never seen the likes of this in my lifetime, where politics has overtaken loyalty to ones country.
    Jen
    4th May 2015
    3:34pm
    I'm no fan of Bill Shorten but what he said had more than an element of truth in it. Far better to invest in a future than stealing from those who can least afford it in order to fix the deficit. How about using a bit of that illustrious free education these pollies were given and start to think creatively?

    http://theaimn.com/abbott-and-hockey-running-scared/
    Kato
    4th May 2015
    3:41pm
    Frank I do not totally disagree with your summary. The shambles being enacted out in the name of politics will invariably hurt all parties and Independents. Commonsense and compromise should be at the forefront from all sides decent policies not just adhoc policy affecting some sectors need to implemented.
    moke
    4th May 2015
    4:22pm
    Here we go again taking sides the lot them regardless of which party they represent are to blame for the condition of this country. It really sticks in the gut to have to vote for such idiots they cannot see that we need the money, stop handing out to what they call poor countries, because if they don't if wont be long before we will be looked on as a poor country. Our so called government is only interested in how generous other countries think they are. Most of our support money goes to the big wigs over seas and not to the poor who really need it. Just like here in Australia
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    5:17pm
    Kato, unfortunately its become a game of "take what you can get and thank your lucky stars." Hence the GP co-payment and the CPI increases on pensions. It's not ideal but this government seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Labor had $5b of cuts prior to the election that they now block in the Senate. This is politics taking forward stage at the expense of what is good for the nation. Sooner or later sanity must prevail.
    buby
    5th May 2015
    4:08pm
    Wally!! Really how is Abbott any better than the other lot.
    Now i just read this morning on the internet, He going to give away 10.000 to the brits......Hello, are we going towards a Deficit? why is he giving this money away, when it should be put towards homeless ppl, and building jobs, so that the young have something to do in their old age. Instead of us oldies supporting them them!!!!
    HE's giving money away willy nilly, and to the indonesians sucking UP, hoping they will let those druggies go home...... OH stop waisting your time and OURs. FIX our HOspitals......and STOP the POLLUtion so i can travel, and BReathe at the same time.......You Policitians are a REAL work of ART aren't YOU?????
    wally
    6th May 2015
    3:13pm
    Hi buby. If Abbott is giving 10,000? to the Brits, as you say how is that worse than the orgy of mismanagement and overspending the Rudd and Gillard created during their yeas in government? Their spending spree went on for six years, disposed of the budget surplus left by the Libs in 2007 and ran up over $300 Billion in debt to the Chinese.

    BTW are you aware that hospitals are the responsibility of the state governments and not the Commonwealth? Since you address me personally, do you really think I have it in my power (as a pensioner) to fix the hospitals and make pollution go away so you can enjoy life in your little slice of the Twilight Zone? Thanks for the implied compliment, but like the arguments, the compliment is, unfortunately misdirected and confused.
    MICK
    12th May 2015
    4:58am
    Here they come again, the government stoolie pretending ting be individual posters.
    Sorry Abbott messengers but your blame game which lays blame with the previous government is wearing thin.
    Your employer has had almost 3 years and we are further in debt than we ever were.
    The true reason for our debt not reducing is because of the policies from THIS GOVERNMENT:
    1. attacks on average Australians whilst the rich are given their tax breaks and tax shelters and whilst their wealth keeps growing exponentially.
    2. deals with the coal industry which is still in trouble and which now costs taxpayers $8 BILL I ON more than under the previous government every year.
    3. the continual refusal from this government to close the well understood superannuation tax loopholes so we'll understood by all of our elected representatives.
    4. the refusal to end the sale of our food growing land to the Chinese government.
    I for one am sick of your political prostitution Frank and avatars. You are a disgrace to the nation and your posts will not stop readers from u der standing the truth.
    The above are some of the issues we should all be focussing on no matter who is in power. This is not a one sided blame game. This is a matter of national interest and both sides should not be allowed to get away with murder. This government has been blocked from its piracy but now that it wants to be re-elected Australians need to work out what is going to happen to them should this government manage to control the senate......which will be a rout of poor people and even more money pouring into the bank accounts of the rich.
    And expect to see a lot of Frank and the ongoing propaganda campaign from this crew. It will be relentless and it is to be hoped that Australians do what much of the developed world is now doing: voting for neither side of politics.
    The nation, as always, will thoroughly deserve the government they get.
    Adrianus
    14th May 2015
    9:42am
    mick, once again you post utter crap. The UK Election last week saw David Cameron win in a landslide and Labour lost that many seats that their leader had to resign.
    Scotland wiped the floor with Labour with swings as high as 28%.
    People are fed up with the empty rhetoric from the left and are asking for strong fair, humane and just governance which only a Conservative Government can deliver.
    I have said this before but it is worth repeating.....
    Tony Abbott will become one of Australia's greatest and longest serving Prime Ministers.
    professori_au
    4th May 2015
    11:06am
    I do not believe we should have a budget blowout. If we do then we need an open transparent look at the figures and where expenditure is located. For one thing, expenditure does not give a high priority to servicing our country and its people. The government has cut little from the funding of other countries or the wars USA like to participate. Perhaps the government should tell the public how much revenue is held in investment accounts in off shore tax havens and why they are there. We need to have the government look at why 457 migrants are used to replace Australian workers. I have received notice of a couple of engineering companies near where I live, who are alleged to have closed down without paying the workers their entitlements and opened a few days later to employ 457 workers. This needs to be investigated as it is an abuse of the 457 reasons for seeking workers from another country. It is one reason why we have an increasing number of unemployment and please do not use the PR argument that unemployment is not high or has not risen. The figures are deliberately skewed by forcing people to become students (in mickey mouse schemes); working an hour per week or working as a volunteer. These are schemes to hide the real figures. The government should be involved with developing an sound secondary and primary industry base. It should not be avoiding the problems of an alleged skills shortage and concentrate on a sound industry training base. We need to look more closely at the tax avoidance schemes for the rich and put in place a system that ensure they pay a fair share into our system and not get away with moving their accounting systems off shore to lower tax areas. You earn the money here you pay the taxes here. No I do not believe we owe the money that is claimed. It is called poetic accounting and is designed for the benefit and interest of the rich, hoping to transfer the blame to the lower income earners who are already paying a disproportionate level of tax and where our parliamentarians' greed allows them to dig deeply into the trough for their own benefit. Look at the companies who donate to the poltical parties and expect benefits.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    11:16am
    In terms of 'should we be scared of a deficit'? NO - most households run a deficit, with the proviso that their finances are organised so as to incorporate that deficit over the long term and one day actually get out of it.

    Where governments differ is that Party policies become addicted to the ready flow of cash from both deficit borrowing and revenue from established sources - and imagine that is just spending money and not there to repay debt in the LONG term.

    We need a thorough revision, as I've said many times, of the way government finances are currently managed, and the clear division away from 'consolidated revenue' of funding for specific project areas and the insulation of those funds from the grasping hands of the taught (as opposed to educated - and primarily at tertiary level FSS) ideologues who imagine this great big sewerage pond of 'consolidated revenue can be used for any idea they have - since there's so much of it and obviously it can be replenished at the stroke of a pen.

    Dumb as....
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:17pm
    Most households run a deficit.

    No wonder Australia is a mess if mot people are living beyond their means.
    wally
    4th May 2015
    12:55pm
    Hi TREBOR I agree that going into debt from time to time can be a necessity in financial management, whether or on personal or governmental level. The trick to manage this successfully is not to allow debt to get out of hand. The problems facing Greece (and the instability and unhappiness there) show us what can happen if debt is allowed to get out of hand.

    Like it or not, that is what happened when Rudd got his mitts on Australia's chequebook with his "stimulus payments" that failed to save Australia (in his view) so he had to create more schemes, (like the fatal pinks batts scheme and NBN )) at taxpayers expense to make it appear he was saving Australia from the GFC.

    Luckily, Australia's minerals export boom bonanza to Asia kept Australia' financially viable, despite Julia Gillard's attempts to sabotage this with her misguided and failed Mining Tax which highlighted Labor's unfitness to manage a budget.

    Now that Australia's finances are safe from Kevin's grasp, I can only wonder if Teresa keeps Kevin away from the fortune she made with her employment business in the years before Kevin became PM. She'd be crazy to let him get his mitts on that!
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    1:51pm
    Dearest Bonny - it must have been a wonderful life to never borrow for a car or a home to live in......
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    3:27pm
    Never borrowed money for a car but I'll admit to borrowing money for a house but paid it back within six months. I can't understand why people borrow for cars or any other depreciating assets as it does not make economic sense to me.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    4:42pm
    Bonny, in simple terms if the item purchased appreciates at a higher rate than the cost of funds why not? That's what Gerry Harvey does. He buys timber in Australia, sends it to China, who in turn return the timber as flat packed furniture which is probably landed for 3 or 4 times the total cost. If you have something on your shelf for sale at $400 which has cost you less than $100, wouldn't you borrow to buy more? When the US Central bank promised to hold it's cash rate at 0% for 5 years I can imagine many would have jumped at it as retail lending after adding a margin would have been around 3% or less. If a retail business cannot make at least 15% in tough times they should give it away. Rudd and Swan should have had a frank discussion with Glenn Stevens and worked together instead of pulling the economy in different directions. We would have sailed through like the US instead of now having to face a possible disaster.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    5:04pm
    That was my point. You've never borrowed money for a car and only borrowed for six months for a house... what kind of magic carpet have you ridden all your life? Can I have that genie in that bottle you inherited?

    You are aware that without borrowing for a long time most people simply cannot afford a car or a home, aren't you? Hello, occupants....
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    6:13pm
    Unfortunately I have yet to inherit anything and don't expect anything. I didn't own a car until I was well into my twenties. Bought my first house not long after but even though I knew the bank manager personally I have to virtually beg him for the loan as I was a woman. I then worked 3 jobs as I just wanted to get rid of the debt. That was the genie in the bottle for me.
    MICK
    12th May 2015
    4:59am
    Government stoolie hard at work. Read my post above.

    4th May 2015
    11:24am
    If the budget cuts back on Aged Pension's already subsistence level benefits then, yes, it will be scary to those affected.
    wally
    4th May 2015
    12:56pm
    All cuts are scary for those being negatively affected by such cuts.
    Tom Tank
    4th May 2015
    11:53am
    Why oh why is fixing the deficit always about by cutting expenditure on education, health and welfare?
    Why not on defence? Why not on politicians perks and superannuation?
    There are many ways it can be done but given the political bent of the current government it will always be about austerity. They should read about the Great Depression and realise that the person most responsible for ending that was an Austrian by the name of Herr Hitler.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:20pm
    The house needs to be included in the asset test for the pension and there is so much inequity in this alone. People are getting pensions and then leaving their expensive house to people who don't need it. This is wrong.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2015
    12:40pm
    And even is the inheritors needs it that's should not be a consideration. Its the here and now that needs to be addressed. The govt could loan a pension against the house value, when the occupant dies the govt takes back their pension (all or part depending on circumstances) and when the property is sold and the balance can go to the heirs
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:46pm
    Agree. Most pensioners would have more money to spend as it wouldn't be all locked up in a big bulky asset that is of no use to them when they die.
    wally
    4th May 2015
    1:07pm
    Hi Bonny. It is up to the people living in big bulky houses whether or not they want to downsize and have more money to spend. The trouble is, some people still think they can have their cake and eat it too.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    1:54pm
    Perhaps, trood. I long ago suggested a government sponsored 'reverse mortgage' at a rate of interest that would match CPI and thus would be revenue neutral over the long term while benefiting pensioners who would actively contribute to the tax system with that money anyway by spending. A win-win, but for many too 'socialist' - just like government-run superannuation.

    The Fear runs deep in this one.....
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    3:31pm
    Even if a pensioner's estate just paid back what they got in pension payments without interest would be a big help to the budget's bottom line.
    Sum1
    4th May 2015
    4:34pm
    People who work all their lives and buy a house in a good area that escalates in value over time then should be penalised for this? Sounds more like Death Duties being invoked whilst you are still alive.
    MICK
    12th May 2015
    5:13am
    Death duties are coming. Give it time.
    Australia is one of the most over-taxed countries tax in the world. I know this because I travel extensively. The reason why the nation is doing it tough is big business and their lapdog governments. Big business is generally an abject failure internationally, our governments could not plan a 3 legged race for 2 contestants and the population is unable to understand that THEY are the real problem because they keep voting in the prostituted Liberal and Labor imbeciles they do.
    My advice to voters is to go overseas and see what other nations do: the businesses which thrive and the planning of their cities and countries. Australia is a dog's breakfast where the word 'planning' is used colloquially only, where waste is a game between two sides to see who can squander the most and where the interests of the rich are more important that the future of the nation or indeed the planet.
    Whilst I am a proud Australian I am weighing up my choices. Do I continue to live in a disfunctional society where the cost of living is close to the highest in the world and where taxes are close to the same? Or do I cut and run and move to somewhere unique where government is only half bad and where the rich do not own governments. A tough one.
    I agree with you sentiments Sum but government stoolie Frank is just stating the official view. You need to be concerned if this deadbeat crew get back. We will all be suffering then.
    LENYJAC
    4th May 2015
    12:27pm
    GET RID OF PO(LIES) LERKS AND PERKS AND THEIR OVER THE TOP REDICULOUS SALARY,ALSO 1 INSTANCE COMES TO MIND.. STOP THIS USELESS HOCKEY FROM BEING PAID FOR LIVING IN HIS FAMILYS HOUSE WHAT SORT OF RIPOFF IS THIS????????????
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:32pm
    Most polies are unpaid and that is why we don't get the best people in parliament. The best people make lots more by running companies, their own businesses etc.
    Sum1
    4th May 2015
    12:47pm
    LJ....The use of Capital Letters and 12 ? in your post does not give it any more meaning...try more fore substance.
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    12:51pm
    Leny Jac Whilst the Federal politicians may well be paid more than you, they cannot be by any stretch be seen as "Over the top". The CEO of Australia Post at $4m+ a year is 'over the top'; Westpak CEO Gail Kelly at $13m+ per year (NOV 2014) was 'over the top'. The Prime Minister's salary at around $500,000 a year and the $370,000 for the Treasurer looks simply miserly in comparison. Even the Back Benchers only command under $200,000. I'd check out the payments to Board Members in the top 500 companies before you complain about these salaries.
    wally
    4th May 2015
    1:11pm
    Leny, you left your caps lock on again. Do you drive down the street with your turn signals flashing too? And while you are checking you caps lock, make sure your spell checker is on too.
    LENYJAC
    4th May 2015
    1:57pm
    I TYPE HOW I LIKE NO I TURN MY INDICATOR OFF NOT LIKE SOME KSS YES THEY ARE OVER THE TOP JUST LIKE POL(LIES) AND EXPLAIN WHY THIS HOCKY PRICK GETS AWAY WITH GETTING PAID TO LIVE IN HIS WIFES HOUSE (THATS OVER THE TOP)
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    2:11pm
    Shouting and name calling does not improve the point you may be trying to make Leny Jac.
    LENYJAC
    4th May 2015
    3:46pm
    YOALL SOUND LIKE POLLY LOVERS TO ME..
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    5:08pm
    "Most polies are UNPAID??????"

    Where do you live? Can't be Australia. Here not only are they well paid, but their staff get all the nice fat salaries and perks as well... even Lord Mayors here cop a mint for buggar all...

    The more you post, Bonny, the more you astound me.

    "never borrowed for a car and only borrowed once for a house and repaid it in six months, and most polies are unpaid'...... Hello Occupants..... that you, Alpha Centauri?
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    5:09pm
    I think the Governor of the RBA is quite well paid for a public servant. Not as much as the Aust Post Ceo but at $1m pa is double the PM's salary.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    10:51pm
    Indeed, Frank - I fail to see what justifies those big salaries - salaries higher than the head of our government. I can't say I've been impressed lately by the performance of these highly paid people.
    Adrianus
    5th May 2015
    9:05am
    TREBOR, Swan must have been impressed with Stevens to give him a second term. We've seen what happens when someone brakes ranks in the Public Service in an effort to stop the wage rises. All hell brakes loose, particularly at the ABC. It's the Left Intellectuals, highly paid, highly educated, financially comfortable who are having too much to say in Australia's governance. Have a look at the demographics of Balmain and Newtown. In Balmain, 75 yo mum is on an aged pension living in a $2m house with the offspring having at least 2 uni degrees and a highly paid professional job. The basket weaving has slowed in favour of the Byron Bay holiday pad. But there's always time to don the baggy suit and cry poor me.
    wally
    6th May 2015
    3:31pm
    Hi Leny, Is it true that your turn signal is always on because you are going around in circles all the time?
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    12:30pm
    As always, people will accept change only if it happens to someone else!

    BTW; can someone please enlighten me why a family with a stay at home parent should be 'entitled' to child care - and subsidised at that? Can't they look after their own kids?

    Also if all 4 and 5 year olds are guaranteed pre-school places, why is this not under the education system and part of Primary School education? Why does it come under child-care?

    Just asking.....
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:37pm
    Years ago when my child went to day care I was the only mother who paid full fees. Most mothers paid very little and so why not have someone else mind your child so you can have a break from them? Back then preschools were struggling because it cost these mothers a lot more to send their kids to preschool than day care centres.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2015
    12:45pm
    Stay at home parent should definitely not get child care or any kind, just plain stupid if they do
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    12:53pm
    It certainly didn't make any sense to me at the time.
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    12:59pm
    Bonny; "so why not have someone else mind your child so you can have a break from them?:....

    Ah.... because they are yours, they are your responsibility and you are not working! If these stay at home parents want 'a break from them' why should they be subsidised to outsource parenting? Oh that's right, they want 'me time'.

    Well sorry, they bought the ticket now they have to ride the train. Look after their own kids and not at my expense just because they want 'a break'!
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    2:01pm
    I don't see that anyone should get childcare subsidised.... they're your kids .. you look after them as was done in generations past - well, mostly...

    No childcare subsidy = unemployment resolved instantly = removal of the failings of the Mandatory Dual Income Family....

    What kind of government is prepared to throw billions at providing a more than equal opportunity for someone to go to work when nearly 20% of the workforce are unemployed or under-employed, and when all the subsidising of childcare does is force many others to go to work to cope, because childcare raises costs of living both via taxation and direct cost to the consumer?

    The only people who will truly benefit are those who are 'professionals' whose income is adequate to provide their own childcare anyway.
    professori_au
    4th May 2015
    12:51pm
    Policy regarding childcare provisions is an example of bad policy. Paying people to look after the children is a revenue raising exercise and does not really protect the children. Parents are forced to break the laws by forcing a "parent" to leave young people unsupervised. It is illegal to leave Juniors un supervised. Parents often have to leave for work before any of these centres open and rely on the children to get themselves to school on time and even prepare their own lunches. After school the same applies with parents not returning home until, e.g. 7:00pm. The children are left without care and supervision once the after school centres close. Given the high rate of unemployment our governments need to look at whether it wishes to provide services to the public and or generate revenue or whether it would be more viable to support the notion that at least having one parent staying at home to supervise, etc. would be a better and more viable option. We would not have the situations where children are wandering the streets well after dark. A recent instance was brought to my attention about a five year old wondering along a walking track in the dark at 9 or 10:00pm. When questioned were the parents aware and what were they doing about it, the reply was she knows what time she has to be home?????? That is irresponsible and this is an example of the overall problems we are facing today. I might emphasise the child was a little girl. With paedophiles around what protection has this child and while I will agree we cannot make laws to cover all situations we need to improve on those we have and we need to review the polices of government regarding child protection.
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    1:05pm
    professori_au it makes no difference that this child you mention was a girl. NO child should be out at that time of night. This is just poor parenting. You need a license to keep a dog, you don't to have a child - more's the pity.
    Supernan
    4th May 2015
    12:54pm
    First: sacking people creates deficit. They go on the dole. Cant buy things.
    Second: building things for the people, like hospitals & schools creates jobs & services.
    Third: small business employs the most people. Cut jobs, no cash & businesses close.
    Fourth: Aust pension bill is way lower than any other developed country.
    Fifth: Aust deficit is the lowest in the developed world.

    Main solution to deficit : tax the massive profits the rich people get Tax Free ! By using Tax Havens, subsiduary companies, family trusts, excessive super concessions.
    professori_au
    4th May 2015
    1:07pm
    One comment I would make about leaving the home to others. When I was growing up working members contributed to the building or purchase of the home. Are you suggesting they don't count? When TV first came members of a family contributed towards buying it. Seems we have lost some responsibility towards family culture. What do we have now?? Me, Me, Me, culture. As a member of a family or community we tended to look after each other. If a family member was injured or ill, others volunteered to help them through a problem. I grew up in a rural community. Perhaps the relative isolation from the big city developed a more compassionate approach to life?
    dougie
    4th May 2015
    1:17pm
    Why do not we wait until next week before we make all sorts of comments about something that at this point does not exist. The Budget only becomes fact when it is presented to Government. Then we can read scan analyse and comment on the perception that each of us has of the budget. Believe me there will be many thoughts and points put forward and that is how it should be.
    wally
    6th May 2015
    3:38pm
    I agree, and our respondents are all jumping at shadows until the budget is finally revealed. Instead, we get the same old **** from the some old 8888s until then. And guess what? We shall be getting more of the same after the budget! Same old hamsters running on the same old hamster wheels of opinion.
    Reeper
    4th May 2015
    1:25pm
    You, I and the average citizen manage our money in the short term; weekly, monthly and not much beyond for most. Government spending is different. Whilst many believe the budget blowout is insignificant, they cannot deny that at some time in the future debt must be repaid. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan started governance with a very, very healthy budget and like all of us when a windfall occurs we spend. Most of us don't spend it all or we stop when the bucket is empty...not Rudd and Swan. They spent, spent, spent until they had emptied the bucket three times over and what did they buy? Absolutely nothing except some very dodgy 'gifting' to the public. The debt is now accumulating interest and someone has to say stop! It is time everyone understood that the debt created isn't the governments debt it is ours, everyones, including those who don't pay tax and those who mooch off everyone. This government is committed to resolving the debt by the most painless possible. Unfortunately all those votes Rudd and Gillard bought are now seeing how they will have to pay for those gifts and it is multiples of the original sum per tax payer.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    3:16pm
    Swannie started with a superficially 'healthy' budget, based on the assumption (false) that resources booms would keep going indefinitely, and on the false premise that selling off the family farm was going to provide endless revenue even when it was no longer being farmed. On top of that further revenue cuts were achieved by cutting income tax.

    Saying that Wee Johnnie and Co made things better is faulty. They would have done better leaving their hands off the whole thing.
    Grateful
    4th May 2015
    1:36pm
    How do we go from a "Budget CRIS' to all's well we won't be doing anything (surprise!!) when everything seems to be getting WORSE.
    That, my friends is the price we all have to pay for "populism" and a very selfish leader who is only concerned about saving HIS own skin.
    Don't think WE won't all have to pay a much bigger price when somebody has the guts to DO something about it. What are the odds on a very early election where Tony blames the Senate for not being allowed to fix everything up?? From memory, I don't think he has even had last year's Budget passed, you know the one where all the poor people were going to solve the "crisis" and was howled down by the vast majority of the population (no, not just the Senate!!).
    Sceptic
    4th May 2015
    1:52pm
    So Grateful, we have a leader who won't do anything to save his own skin, while at the same time the Senate hasn't passed the measures for saving the debt from last years budget. From your post of contradictions I think that you are somewhat confused.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    3:14pm
    It isn't simply that the measures for 'saving the budget' haven't been passed and if they had been they would have 'saved the budget' - the simple reality was that the measures proposed were worthless in real terms and were a deliberate imposition on those least able to afford it. Pure ideology and nothing else. Let the majority poor pick up the slack and allow their betters to make more for their back pocket - that way there will be this enormous 'trickle-down' and the country will be saved!

    I don't want Labor back either - but I certainly see no future for this misguided bunch of charlatans
    Sceptic
    4th May 2015
    4:33pm
    Whether you like it or not, the libs were elected to govern at the last election. They have been prevented implementing their ideas for doing so by the Senate members. If their solutions to removing the deficit are wrong we can vote them out at the next election and give the lot that created the problem a chance to fix it.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    10:54pm
    Yeees - but to govern on behalf of the people and to be responsive to them - the Senate is doing ITS elected job by putting a stop to bad policy. There is no Divine Right of Government Elect here..... and never will be.

    https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/divine-right-of-elected-government
    Lescol
    4th May 2015
    1:47pm
    Independent analysis by Deloitte Access Economics. eh? Who is kidding whom in this matter? I mean, if there was really a deficit issue, then the biggest lurk of all would be immediately ended by the government who has access to the real figures. I refer of course to negative gearing. Its continuance is absurd and obscene and as a result health, education and welfare continue to be plundered.
    Sceptic
    4th May 2015
    1:55pm
    End negative gearing and the budget deficit will be fixed. cut politicians salaries and the budget deficit will be fixed. Tax the higher incomes more and the budget deficit will be fixed. All I can say is that it is a good job that the posters on this site are not running the country or we would have a debt ten times what it is.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    2:02pm
    The last time they abolished negative gearing the supply of rental properties dried up and the prices of rental properties rose significantly. People were offering landlords rental prices above what the landlords wanted. Rental prices are already rising enough now without opening this can of worms.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    3:20pm
    Eventually the market will adjust - trouble is that, like so very many other 'social science' issues imposed on us all - every one of them will cost a lot of pain to restore to sanity.

    You mean all those landlords were just happy to leave their properties vacant and gathering dust while the banks moved to re-possess them?

    I smell a false story here.....?
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    3:42pm
    No there is an ever increasing number of people wanting to rent houses and if the supply of rentals doesn't keep up with this then rental prices rise. So if the supply of rental properties is stopped then the demand for rentals quickly overtakes it. This is what happened before when negative gearing was abolished.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2015
    3:53pm
    I doubt Labor would end negative gearing. They have been down that path.
    Sum1
    4th May 2015
    4:42pm
    Since the costs of producing an income are generally deductible against the taxpayer’s other income, property investors can effectively offset some of the interest expense against their wages. According to stats from the ATO 70% of the people claiming tax benefits from negative gearing are on less than $80.000. Why would anyone go into business and run at a loss. Buying an investment property is a business.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    11:02pm
    So without a market compelled in one way or another to actually invest in NEW construction - will will inevitably end up with a huge mass of homeless men, women and children.... we keep pumping 120,000 a year more people via immigration into the major cities primarily - and then there is an endless cycle of breeding....... kids grow up and want their own place etc....

    That is why some advocate negative gearing ONLY on new construction, and its abolition on existing residences, which are only changing hands anyway and not actively contributing to the number of rentals available
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    11:06pm
    .. AND all that new construction needs land and genuine infrastructure ... and I don't mean light rail to the already crowded Parramatta district....

    Every time a new 'infrastructure initiative' enables more people to move to and in a certain place - more people move in that direction and place and soon overwhelm it again. that's why I oppose extra harbour crossings and such - all that will happen is that traffic will increase until it is choked again.
    Adrianus
    5th May 2015
    8:30am
    The cost of Health, Education and Welfare has continued to rise in the past few years. Lescol your claim of plundering is just plain wrong.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    2:08pm
    I heard Bill Shorten say today that the Labor Party he leads would spend their way out of this inevitable looming economic crisis. Labor and the Greens are playing a dangerous game and taking us to the cliff edge for their own political agendas.
    How will we know when debt levels are to high?
    It's often said that controlled debt can be a good thing but when the debt controls the government as it is in Greece then we are in trouble.
    I say to Shorten and Milne, start thinking about Australia before it is too late.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    3:22pm
    While I agree with you in some ways - didn't you look at the figures projected above for the next 'budget'?

    You should have said:-

    I say to Shorten and Milne and Abbott, start thinking about Australia before it is too late.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2015
    3:54pm
    Thank God Shorten is not in charge of my household budget.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2015
    11:08pm
    I'm glad none of them are....... they have simply no idea of figures and are overwhelmed by the billions they are playing Monopoly with, to the extent that they forget what they are there for - to pay the outstanding bills first and then buy the luxury items. One of those outstanding bills is paid-for and fully pre-taxed pension Rights.....
    marymint5
    4th May 2015
    2:35pm
    Reading the comments on this page saddens me.
    Each blame the other side but not one with a positive outlook.
    This Government is failing its people, they think only of big business and how they can'help them, They never think of how they can help the people just how much they can take off them. The deficit was doubled in no time when Abbott got in and it took Labor 6 years to get the deficit they left.But lets forget that, we have a lot of baby boomers coming into retirement lets get them, lets include their homes in the assets. Forgetting that they worked very very hard, no childcare tax ( whatever that is) no handouts from anyone in Government just hard work and families assisting their children to buy homes.
    Still the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer but nobody seems to mind.
    Some of the boomers have Super lets have ago at that as well. All to me unbelievable with everyone accepting that Big business pay NO tax and others just get away with it paying lawyers etc to help them avoid Income tax (this should stop all loopholes to be closed).
    One fed up pensioner.
    wally
    6th May 2015
    3:28pm
    Unfortunately there is not much to be positive about, with political debate generating more heat than light and the "light at the end of the tunnel" is the headlight of an oncoming locomotive. The statement that we get the politicians we deserve in a democracy seems to be even more true now than it has ever been.
    mogo51
    4th May 2015
    3:33pm
    Yes getting rid of the deficit is important, but gradually whilst concentrating on growth and jobs.
    They seem to be a nee for workers in some areas and importing workers is not necessarily the answer. Get Aussies into jobs and make them work.
    Above all do not listen to short Bill, he is an idiot.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2015
    3:44pm
    With 800,000 unemployed and 1,200,000 on working visas something is not adding up here.
    KSS
    4th May 2015
    8:23pm
    Bonny, many of those on working visas are doing hard and relatively low paid work that Australians won't do, e.g fruit and vegetable picking and other farm work, Its the 'backpackers/working holiday makers that do much of that work along with bar work, cafe and restaurant work that Australian kids won't do. I do agree though that the 457 visa is a different issue and does need to be looked at especially in areas such as construction where high numbers of non-English speaking workers seem to be employed by non-English speaking companies.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    8:59pm
    KSS there are many highly paid professionals on 457's who speak excellent English. I don't know what the exact figures are but it would come as no surprise to me if the highly skilled outnumbered the lowly skilled non English speaking. There are Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, plumbers and many many other occupations taken up by 457 working tourists.
    moke
    4th May 2015
    4:14pm
    It doesn't matter what government Liberal or Labour what we need is a government that is prepared to forego some of their lurks and perks as they take from the average Australian to get us out of the trouble they got us into. Past politicians that have put us where we are now sit on their BUMS enjoying the easy life that we have paid for. When you are no longer a politician but retired live like the rest of retirees no hand outs you have finished with the government so go to work pay your taxes and help Australia become the country that it was back in the good old days. But better the average Ausie doesn't hold their breath waiting for this.
    Judy in the hills
    4th May 2015
    5:11pm
    Surely we cannot believe the way to fix the huge debt is to spend our way on and on. Is this why the younger people of today think they can have it all - drink, eat, inject, spend, waste all their money and somehow they will be OK?? It doesn't work out that way for spendthrifts, and it won't surely work out as OK for Australia. We're a long way off Greece's huge debt, but we are on the same slippery dip. EVERYONE has to feel the pinch and a realistic deduction needs to be taken from everyone - starting with the big end of town and dwindling down to the low income people. Its surely the ONLY way.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2015
    5:31pm
    I agree Judy, and if we all need to experience a little pain then Australia's foreign aid budget should have a reduction as well.

    4th May 2015
    6:03pm
    The budget deficit could be halved by simply addressing the grossly unfair superannuation tax concessions to the rich, but the Government has ruled that option out. The deficit is largely a result of tax cuts the Howard/Costello government granted, 80% of which went to the top 20% of income earners. If we want to fix the debt, we have to come to terms with the reality that you can't get blood out of a stone. Those who can afford to need to pay their share. There is no other way, unless you want to be inhuman and leave the poor to starve, in which case ultimately society will be destroyed and the rich will actually be the biggest losers - though it will take a while for the damage to affect them.
    professori_au
    4th May 2015
    7:36pm
    KSS I agree with you that it should not make any difference that the child is a girl.. Any child of that age should not be wandering the streets. The response from the mother that she (the girl) knows what time she had to be home. Ridiculous. the concept of time is not ingrained in a child. It is often not ingrained in adults. How many people you know who have no concept of time management, let alone expecting a child know. Most likely the child cannot tell the time at that age. My point was that a very young child was unsupervised and the parents seemed to show little concern. Having child minding centres is a plus but really does not solve the problem where both parents are required to work. Apart from this are the irresponsible parents who should not even have children
    Chris B T
    4th May 2015
    9:12pm
    One way to save Billions of $ is to scrap the Defence Purchase of the New Fighter, its out of date, won't perform to expections. Just a LEMON of an Aircraft be constantly in for maintenance or modifications.
    On going Defence Drain on Budget for overpayments to maintain, as well before delivery. There would be many more bad sending habbits costing billions $ in extra payments.
    Be more responsible with public spending, you might return the Budget to surplus in
    10 to 15 years time.
    Increase taxes or beter still enforce taxes on companies make money here, but send their funds overseas.
    Lookfar
    14th May 2015
    11:22am
    Even better, build our new submarines here as well, would save enormous amount of foreign exchange and retain much of our shipbuilding capacity plus stimulate so many other industries.
    Strummer
    5th May 2015
    8:27am
    The current government's election strategy was to create an element of fear in the electorate; that policy continues unabated.
    Lookfar
    5th May 2015
    4:32pm
    Debt has to be re-thought! - Only overseas debt is bad.
    What I would really like to talk about is the current anomalous perceptions, mainly pushed by the Liberal party but also tacitly accepted by the Labour party, about debt.
    Taking the Liberal party’s position, as it is the clearest exposition of this particular fallacious travesty, a la Joe Hockey, ‘a Government has to, just like a person/family, pay it’s debts.'
    This so resonates with various religious teachings and over concerned toilet trainings, etc. that most folk simply accept it, it seems to them to be just common sense.
    However, on closer inspection, the analogy totally breaks down, a family can not print money, a country can, (although it is an internal matter, similiar to the individual eating or drinking too much or the family likewise or having a gambling culture) - sure an individual can borrow money, but that is not the same as what has to be done to fix internal physical matters such as losing one’s licence or liver from drinking.
    I can stop drinking, start paying my debts, negotiate my way, (if I am lucky given the predatory attitudes of the big banks) out of the situation but I can not print money, (legally anyway) and this is all the difference, if you think clearly about it, - if I don’t pay my bills, I will lose my house/lifestyle/family/ whatever, whether I give up drinking or not, and the Government, to the degree it represents the economic turnover of the Australian economy will lose aaa credentials etc. but, that only applies to the external factors, the direct economic give and take with overseas economies, - whether the Government prints money internally or not is the same as whether I drink or not, so not the same as whether Australia pays it’s bills overseas or not.
    The argument that in the Wiemar republic, folk had to trundle wheelbarrows of money to the local supermarket is irrelevant, Hitler turned that bankrupt economy into the war machine that almost conquered the world, without balancing it’s internal budget at all.
    America has done something like that with ‘quantitative easing’, although all the conservative economists shriek fear and loathing.
    Of course America has the advantage that it’s currency is the world’s currency, and in this time of the World Economy it will be interesting to see how that pans out, currently no other economy is big enough to punish America for it’s supposed sins, although the Republican party may do that as it is so locked into internal hatreds and inability to think, it may destroy America.
    My point is that we need to clearly delineate between money spent Inside a country (with it’s own currency) and money spent Outside, - it is the money spent Outside that is the killer, the only killer if a country is not going to war.
    Some years ago, Bronwyn Bishop, in charge of defence spending, had to authorise the purchase of Plates/cutlery for the armed forces of Australia, - previously supplied for decades by a family business in Western Australia, and a contract worth about 3 million dollars.
    She found some overseas supplier whereby she claimed “we” saved 2, 4, 8 hundred thousand dollars, ( I don’t remember exactly) but she could not see that in fact Australia lost 3 million dollars in our balance of trade, which is the only objective measure of Australia’s financial position that is like the relationship of the individual to his/her surrounding society.
    Of course the family business was destroyed and all lost their jobs but Government bureaucrats do not believe that that sort of cause and effect is something they personally did.
    I am not attacking the Liberal Party here but just pointing out that politicians just don't get it or pretend they don't.
    This falsity in thinking needs to be discussed widely so that Australians can understood that the judgmental yuk that is shoved down their throats by the likes of Joe Hockey is wrong, - wrong and suicidal.
    I happily acknowledge that the whole subject of money needs total change, and indeed many of the current ills of the world are caused by the current assumptions, but instead of waiting for that change I believe we need to be a lot clearer about this internal external issue, and when that is cleared up the further issues can be addressed as everybody will be just that little bit more educated on the subject.
    So, I positively state that money spent within the country will stimulate the economy, and in so far as it does not negatively influence the Balance of Payments, is positive, - this includes pensions, education, the huge amount of money spent on the Public Service, (which employs nearly half the workforce), the enormous amount of money spent on the service industries etc.
    Really, politicians should be focussing almost entirely on how to better Australia's Balance of Trade, - that is the thing, don't worry about all the judgmental stuff although I agree there should be a lot more fairness and invested money should probably also be encouraged to develop Australian industries as possible, but all of us need to look at China, now the world's second largest economy, - where was it 10, 20 years ago?- and totally driven by it's government subsidising all export industries, organising Government spending to build the infrastructure, restricting capital exporting overseas etc.
    Our Government does not need to be authoritarian to do what the Chinese have done, simply practical, and give up kowtowing to the multinationals.
    This does not dismiss Aid, foreign aid will help small countries grow up and become part of the world we all benefit from, just as we spend money on our children, however it needs to be thoughtfully spent to help those countries, - not the corrupt politicians or local reps of the multinationals but the building of infrastructure within those countries, - if you give a man a fish, versus teach a man to fish, etc.
    We, ordinary people need to think about these things, talk about them, the politicians have no reason to think about them except insofar as they can win the next election, we need to take responsibility for our future, no one else will, the current power structure consists almost entirely of sharks, they need to be herded in the right direction then gradually retired. 
    Cheers,
    Geoff Thomas,
    Malanda, Qld Australia.
    Paulodapotter
    6th May 2015
    9:12am
    I am in substantial agreement with you, Geoff. We have to spend on investment in education, development of new industries, (the most obvious being renewable energy), science (R & D), etc.
    Paulodapotter
    6th May 2015
    9:08am
    What's really scary is that no one is talking about improving productivity by supporting the development of our secondary industries. It's a long term process that needs to start now. For too long we have depended on holes in the ground and primary industries that struggle in an arid climate. Secondary industry carries us through fluctuations in commodity prices and the vagaries of climate, yet still no one is talking about improving our long term needs in productivity encouragement.
    professori_au
    6th May 2015
    11:37am
    what is even more scary is that we have seen our politicians oversee the dismantling of our manufacturing industry in favour of allowing cheap imports into the country under the false argument of "level playing fields and a global economy", which means the lowest common denominator, i.e. cheapest labour and using the cheapest resources. It does not mean for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia as we now realise but for the benefit of foreign powers' profits. We have seen our politicians that have developed a tax system where the poorest support the rich and the rich use every avenue to abrogate their responsibility and avoid taxes. We have seen our politicians bow to the lobby groups of the mining and oil industries, to the extent where our agricultural lands are becoming damaged and polluted and our fragile water systems are being damaged. We are seeing politicians systematically dismantling our education system, including what used to be one of the best industry and training systems in the world and allowed it to be privatised so greedy corporations provide de-skilled training programmes that in most areas cannot meet the demand for qualified and experienced people. We are seeing the introduction of slave labour using 417 contracts where labour companies skim approximately half the wages from captive workers. We see other industries "going into liquidation" and sacking their employees who often lose all of their entitlements and then the companies open under another name and bring in 457 labour. What has our politicians done to investigate? Virtually nothing. What have we done ourselves? Sat there apathetically claiming "its the government, I can't do anything" Well you can. The people are the highest authority (government) and the parliament is our servant. Let us all demand parliament return to lawful government as outlined under our Commonwealth constitution 1901. Remember "whereas we the people; Not we the government or we the parliament but we the people..... come together....... to create an indissolvable constitution. For decades the people have been misinformed; not kept informed while corrupt politicians have changed and amended our laws in favour of political factions and the vested interests of the rich. Speak up and demand back your common law and other constitutional rights before you reach a stage where you have no rights and are merely slaves and assets of corporate government, to be traded and used as their will.
    Lookfar
    6th May 2015
    4:06pm
    This is a very important debate, we have now reached into constitutional law, - which is based on the English Law of Torts, - the Basis of the Australian legal system as it was of the English legal system perhaps the most important principle to ever be produced by the recent human race, "A is responsible to B, to take care".

    Let's try to get that happening, - however
    Geoff.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.