Nuclear Energy: A Layperson's Dilemma

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, "Climate Change: A layperson's Dilemma"…

The Australian Defence Formula: Spend! Spend! Spend!

The skin toasted Australian Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, who resembles, with…

Religious violence

By Bert Hetebry Having worked for many years with a diverse number of…

Can you afford to travel to work?

UNSW Media Release Australia’s rising cost of living is squeezing household budgets, and…

A Ghost in the Machine

By James Moore The only feature not mentioned was drool. On his second day…

Faulty Assurances: The Judicial Torture of Assange Continues

Only this month, the near comatose US President, Joe Biden, made a…

Spiderwoman finally leaving town

By Frances Goold Louise Bourgeois: Has the Day Invaded the Night or Has…

New research explores why young women in Australia…

Despite growing momentum to increase female representation in Australia’s national parliament, it…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Joe Hockey

Captain Confrontation

Whenever Tony Abbott takes on his tough guy approach his popularity in the polls seems to rise, or more accurately, his unpopularity wanes a little. The smirk disappears, the slow measured speech, mind-numbing repetition and finger-counting disappears, and Tony comes as close as he gets to sincerity. He seems to enjoy confrontation and relish in a belligerent reaction. And it has always been thus.

Whilst at Sydney University, Tony led an aggressive rightwing revolt against the leftwing orthodoxies of the late 70s and the campus was covered with anti-Abbott graffiti.

In a 2004 article by the Sydney Morning Herald, one former student who was at Sydney University with Tony Abbott, Barbie Schaffer, described Tony Abbott as “very offensive, a particularly obnoxious sort of guy” and also being “very aggressive, particularly towards women and homosexuals”.

During this time, Tony was charged with bending a street sign, accused of indecent assault, of kicking in a glass panel after being defeated at the University Senate elections in 1976, and, after having being defeated by Barbara Ramjan for the SRC presidency, approaching her, moving to within an inch of her nose, and punching the wall on both sides of her head.

Abbott’s willingness to confront people continued at Oxford.

In May 1982, six days after the British sinking of the Argentinian warship General Belgrano, with 323 killed, an Oxford demonstration took place against Thatcher’s military campaign in the Falklands. Hundreds of chanting students and locals converged on the Martyrs’ Memorial, a traditional gathering place for protesters.

Abbott hurriedly scraped together a dozen fellow rightwingers from Queen’s, rushed to the memorial, and mounted a counter-demonstration in favour of the British war effort. Provocatively, he stood beside the peace protesters, one hand in his pocket, bellowing pro-Thatcher slogans. “Police attempts to disperse [his] unofficial meeting met with little response”.

Of his time at St Patrick’s seminary, vice-rector Fr Bill Wright wrote of Tony that many found him “just too formidable to talk to unless to agree; overbearing and opiniated”.

“Tony is inclined to score points, to skate over or hold back any reservations he might have about his case.”

When the Church made a generous and unprecedented offer to accommodate Tony’s demands that he would prefer to study than do pastoral care and about where he would like to live and study, Tony rejected their offer and subsequently left. Fr Wright asserts that

“Once Tony had beaten the system and was no longer able to locate the ‘struggle’ as being between himself and authority, he had no-one much else blocking his path but himself.”

We have all heard about Tony decking Joe Hockey at football but what you may not realise is that they played for the same club and the stoush happened at training. Joe regularly played in the thirds and often got a run in the first XV but Tony, who was 10 years older and coached and sometimes captained the seconds, refused to pick Joe. Hockey admits he didn’t like the way Abbott ran the team. By his own admission, he was also abrasive. Joe didn’t like his selections and didn’t mind telling him so. So when Hockey saw the opportunity, he went straight for Abbott’s kidneys. Tony’s reaction was “a blistering array of uppercuts, hay-makers and wild swings” which left Hockey unconscious with two black eyes.

Tony was writing for the Bulletin at this time and actually led a strike.

“When I was at the Bulletin, ACP management one day, quite unilaterally, decided to sack the entire photographic department ….we were all shocked, stunned, dismayed, appalled, flabbergasted – when management just came in and said they were sacking the photographic department. So we immediately had a stop work meeting. There were various appropriately angry speeches made and I moved the resolution to go on strike, which was carried, as far as I can recall, unanimously, and we went on strike for a couple of days.”

From there Tony moved on to briefly manage a concrete plant and very quickly found himself causing a total shutdown through his inept handling of employees. Tony explained what happened in a 2001 interview with Workers Online.

“The ideology of the company was, in those days, was that the concrete industry had been run for far too long for the benefit of the owner-drivers and not enough for the benefit of the company and its shareholders – and we had to change that. So, like an obedient young fella I got to the plant in the morning, marched up and down the line of trucks like a Prussian army officer, telling owner-drivers who had been in the industry for longer than I had been alive, that that truck was too dirty, and that truck was filthy, and that truck had a leaking valve and had to be fixed.

Naturally enough, this wasn’t very popular, and I had been there a couple of months, and a phone call came through one morning from the quarry manager, saying that there was going to be a strike starting at midday, so can we put a bit of stuff on the road to you. And I said sure, send me as much as you’ve got. I’ll use it. I can keep my plant open for longer than I otherwise might.

I didn’t think anymore about it. All these trucks turn up at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon with gravel and sand and aggregate, wanting to dump it. And I couldn’t dump it without running material from the ground bins up to the overhead bins. It took me about half an hour to figure out how to turn the conveyor belt on because all the staff had gone home. I finally got it going; the materials were dumped; I went home feeling that I had done my job well. A phone call came through at 5.30 the next morning from the senior plant operator saying: “Did you turn the conveyor belt on yesterday?”. I said “Yeh”. He says “Right – nothing moves – this plant’s black – like to see you get yourself out of this little fix Sonny Boy!”

So anyway, I drove out to the plant that morning, thinking well, you know, this is a bit of a problem. How do I solve this? I thought that there’s really only one thing to do, and that’s to beg. So I got over there and I said to the senior plant operator. I said: “Stan I’m sorry. I’m new in this industry. I appreciate that I’ve been a bit of a so-and-so, but you’ve made your point and I will try to be different.”

He said to me: “It’s out of my hands. It’s in the hands of the union organiser.” So I said, who’s the union organiser and what’s his number? I rang him and I sort of begged and pleaded, and he said: “It’s more than my job’s worth to let this go. Bloody Pioneer are always pulling stunts like this. We’ve had enough of it! We’re sick of it! Got to do something.” So I said, well, look why don’t we put the old final warning. That if I ever do this again, I’ll be run out of the industry. And there was silence on the end of the phone, and after about ten seconds he said: “I’m putting you on a final warning mate, if this ever happens again you will be run out of the industry.”

Tony left soon after and began writing for the Australian. When they went on strike over pay and conditions, Tony was by now campaigning on the side of management, arguing in front of six to seven hundred people at the lower Trades Hall in Sussex Street that they shouldn’t go on strike. His speech did not meet with a particularly warm reception and the strikes went ahead.

When Tony became Minister for Industrial Relations in 2001, when trying to sell his workplace agreements, he said “I would have thought that sensible, intelligent organisations – unions no less than political parties like to say that if you are not against me you are at least potentially for me. Whereas the union I think is saying, if you are not for me you are against me, which I think is a counter-productive attitude.” Pity he didn’t think of that before coming up with Team Australia.

As Health Minister in 2004, Abbott defended John Howard’s decision to invade Iraq.

“As the critics constantly point out, war means that innocent people die. Unfortunately, any peace which leaves tyrants in charge also means that innocent people die. Pacifism is an honourable course of action for an individual prepared to suffer the consequences of turning the other cheek. But requiring collective non-resistance is complicity in evil. It’s an odd moral universe where the accidental killing of Iraqis by soldiers of the Western alliance is worse than the deliberate killing of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein or where it’s immoral to risk hundreds of Western lives to save hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.”

Tony has continued the tough guy rhetoric in recent times, offending China, Russia, Indonesia, Palestine, Malaysia, PNG, East Timor, and most Muslims. He is amplifying the danger to our national security every chance he gets (whilst admitting the actual threat has not changed) and is spending unending billions on defence, armaments, border protection, and anti-terrorist initiatives.

Captain Confrontation has chosen the ground and brought out the heavy roller to prepare the pitch for the spinners.

STOP THE RORTS

In a time when “Team Australia” is being asked to pull together to fix the “debt and deficit disaster we inherited from Labor,” when we are told “the age of entitlement is over” and “nothing is free,” is it any wonder that people are asking who is on the Team because some of us aren’t doing the hard yards.

In July we heard that Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s second-richest parliamentarian, has invested in a ”vulture fund” based in the tax haven Cayman Islands. Whilst this is legal, it seems in conflict with the Coalition’s current campaign against corporate tax dodging and the offshoring of profits.

We then heard of how we are paying off Joe Hockey’s investment property in Canberra. Not only does he claim $270 a night to stay in his own home, he has also collected rent from a host of other MPs who have stayed there.

This is not an unusual practice. As reported in the Telegraph:

“The double dipping of MPs who claim travel allowance to stay in properties owned by themselves or their wives and in some cases reduce their tax by negatively gearing property is well-known in Canberra. In 2007, it was revealed Malcolm Turnbull, then regarded as Australia’s richest MP, rented a house from his wife Lucy when in Canberra. It was reported Mr Turnbull paid $10,000 a year to his wife under the arrangement and claimed another $10 a night when she stayed in Canberra.”

This practice of ‘take whatever you can’ is so entrenched that Tony Abbott freely admitted yesterday that the reason he had kept Cabinet waiting for an hour was because he flew to Melbourne the night before for a party (even though it was a sitting day of Parliament) and to justify claiming expenses he had to fit in a photo opportunity the next morning. Tony’s photo shoots cost this nation millions.

When the Greens called for an independent National Integrity Commissioner to oversee entitlements and parliamentary corruption both major parties scurried away.

The Prime Minister dismissed calls for reform of the entitlements system, saying:

”It doesn’t matter what the rules are. There is always going to be an argument at the margins.”

That’s like saying the rorters are always one step in front of the rules.

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the Department of Finance should investigate politicians’ entitlements across the Parliament, in the wake of the expenses scandals (perhaps before his trip to the snow was noticed). But he did not back the Greens proposal.

“I’m not convinced that there is a need for yet another integrity officer,” he said. “The Auditor General is already able to look at entitlement claims.”

Either the Auditor General is not doing their job very well or, more likely, they need more staff and some political backing.

With the large number of repayments of “incorrectly” claimed entitlements made in recent times, it seems that Tony Abbott and other members of the Federal Parliament may have violated Section 135.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) by “obtaining a financial advantage that they were not entitled to receive.”

Section 135.2 is the criminal code most frequently used by Centrelink to prosecute welfare recipients at the rate of 10 or more people PER DAY for wrongly claiming welfare allowances.

Politicians already have most of their bills paid for them – travel, accommodation, petrol, phone, publications, staff and office expenses – they also draw a hefty wage with a generous retirement package that they can access early. The base pay for Joe Hockey is $366,000 a year and Tony Abbott gets $507,000 before all the extras are considered.

Before you ask the rest of us to pay half a packet of cigarettes to go to the doctor, how about you give up buying Havana cigars with money taken from pensioners. Before you cut $44 million from the National Partnership on Homelessness, how about you pay for your own investment properties. Before you hike up the cost of petrol, how about you pay for your own travel and accommodation to go to parties.

STOP THE RORTS!

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Callow or shallow?

When Nelson Mandela died last year, Tony Abbott joined many other world leaders in singing his praises.

“The world mourns the passing of Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela will forever be remembered as more than a political leader, he was a moral leader. He spent much of his life standing against the injustice of apartheid.”

But Tony didn’t always feel that way.

When Abbott was President of the Students’ Representative Council at Sydney University, he wrote in Honi Soit that Voluntary Student Unionism “would finally stop all students being taxed so the SRC can fund groups such as International Socialists, South African Terrorists, the Spartacists, Lidcombe Health Workers Collective etc. which are quite irrelevant, not to say obnoxious, to student purposes.”

Abbott’s “South African Terrorists” were the members of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) political party, to whom the SRC had previously been giving money.

Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal Party, and its associated Liberal student groups at universities, supported the Commonwealth campaign to abolish Apartheid. Abbott did not join these efforts. He was President of the University of Sydney Democratic Club, an affiliate organization of B.A. Santamaria’s militantly anti-Communist National Civic Council and Democratic Labor Party.

These organisations actively supported South Africa’s Apartheid government, if not the Apartheid system itself. Abbott wrote and published the club’s bulletin, The Democrat, and was a close friend of Santamaria. The Apartheid government was seen in Western conservative circles as an important bulwark against Afro-Communist tendencies, which the ANC was thought to exhibit.

Anti-Apartheid activity was alive and well in Australia at this time. Many Australians supported fundraising efforts for the ANC, and participated in anti-Apartheid demonstrations throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The racially exclusive Springboks were banned from playing in Australia between 1974 and the end of Apartheid in 1994. In 1981, the Fraser government refused permission for the aircraft carrying the Springboks to a tour of New Zealand to refuel on Australian territory. Abbott, however, accepted a rugby scholarship to tour South Africa in what former Federal Labor Minister Barry Cohen described as a “universally acknowledged… promotional tour of Apartheid”.

Tony isn’t the only Liberal to change his tune since University days.

A few years earlier, a young Malcolm Turnbull, while describing then-PM Gough Whitlam as an arrogant egomaniac, lauded the Labor Party as a “wealth of opinion and class… diverse and less likely than the conservatives to blindly rally behind one great leader.” Menzies’ Liberals, on the other hand, had “warmed the treasury benches” for 23 years with “the steak-fed bottoms of the sons of Toorak and the champions of Double Bay” – an interesting observation as Malcolm grew up in Vaucluse and Double Bay and he and his wife Lucy have lived in the Wentworth electorate all their lives.

In 1984, Christopher Pyne signed up for the Adelaide University Liberal Club and the Young Liberal Party before he even went to his first lecture. Soon enough, he was running both shows. Ruthlessly he purged right-wingers from the executive of the Liberal Club. When half of the 400-strong membership threatened to quit in protest, Pyne cheerfully collected the resignations. He has freely admitted that he campaigned against the reintroduction of university fees purely to win an election, a view he reiterated when interviewed recently saying “Those people who see me as some kind of political warrior are right to think that I would do everything I can to win, so that the Coalition is in government… I’ll do what I need to do to position the Coalition to win elections.”

Sydney University was a very different place by 1987, when Joe Hockey took the reins of the SRC Presidency. The dominant political grouping was the Sydney University Liberal Club, a conglomerate of liberals, soft conservatives, and careerist moderates.

Liberals and Left Action were the two major factions on the SRC, but Hockey was from neither. Indeed, he disparaged the student newspaper, Honi Soit, for their obsession with the ‘return of Liberalism’ and its reluctance to report on student protests.

“One wonders whether Honi Soit is a NEWSpaper or a front for political masturbation,” he wrote in a 1987 Presidential report. “They do not seem to have any shortage of contributors espousing the virtues of Liberalism on campus but when there is student news there is no local coverage.”

Hockey’s policy statement in the 1986 election edition of Honi: “There is no question in my mind that students will never accept fees. I totally oppose any compromise the government may offer.”

His year as SRC President was chiefly spent fighting Labor’s re-introduction of university fees, which had been abolished under Gough Whitlam. But according to a 2012 profile by Bernard Keane, he was “accused of failing to aggressively lead student demonstrations for fear of endangering his Solicitors’ and Barristers’ Admission Board enrolment.”

Hockey’s backers, a ticket called “Varsity”, were decidedly centrist and unaffiliated, declaring they would “fight the burden of factionalism presently hindering the SRC’s effective operation.” In stark contrast to Abbott, Varsity was emphatic: “There should be no further government cuts to university funding.”

Whilst I acknowledge that these were words spoken a long time ago, it appears that, as university students, our current ministers were more endowed with confidence than conviction. As their careers have unfolded we have seen political expediency trump passion with backflips on not only university fees but climate change, paid parental leave, compulsory superannuation, banking regulation, unaccompanied minors being sent offshore, environmental protection – the list of discarded beliefs is long and growing.

Yes, they were young, but one wonders whether their views were those of callow youth or shallow men.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

An Open Letter to Joe Hockey

Dear Joe Hockey,

Back in 2012, when you said the age of entitlement was over, I was so relieved. I was relieved that highly-paid politicians like Tony Abbott would no longer think it acceptable to charge tax-payers for personal book tours. I was relieved that filthy rich politicians like Malcolm Turnbull, and like yourself, would put an end to ethically-suspect rental schemes, where your tax-payer funded Canberra housing allowance is paid to your spouses for investment properties they have cleverly put in their names. Which you will no doubt benefit from once again when they sell. I was also relieved to hear that this sense of entitlement would also be finished for the families of rich politicians, when the likes of Tony Abbott would say it was not acceptable to accept a secret scholarship for his daughter’s education. Nor a refund on a non-refundable deposit paid on a rented flat without proper due diligence that any other non-entitled member of the public is in no position to demand. Nor lavish trips to the Melbourne Cup to hob-knob with celebrities which even you can no doubt see is not in the public interest and therefore not an entitlement that should be charged to the tax-payer. Because these are the best examples I have ever seen of a sense of entitlement which is so entrenched and seemingly innate that it’s like an incurable disease that seems to have no end. So again, congratulations on declaring an end to it.

And oh how I wish I could leave this letter here. But I can’t. And you know why I can’t. Because I am mistaken. I am not mistaken that you wish to end the age of entitlement. What is clear is that you do in fact want to end what you call entitlement. The problem is, your definition of the problem of entitlement in our culture, and my definition, are completely different things. From the budget you’ve handed down, and from your recent statements about poor people’s spending habits on petrol (which no one misinterpreted, you really should own your mistakes Joe), it’s clear that you think entitlement is our community’s idea of rights. Rights to quality education. Rights to quality healthcare. Rights to a clean and sustainable environment. Rights to a social safety net when things go wrong. Rights to live in a community where it’s possible to be born poor, but to better our circumstances through hard work, encouragement and support from those around us. All these rights are what you call ‘a sense of entitlement’ aren’t they Joe? And aren’t these rights the things you would ideally like to end? Isn’t your budget, built on a foundation of lies about a non-existent budget-emergency, your campaign to kill the very culture that provides Australians with rights to all of these things that any first-world, educated, well-resourced and fair country like Australia should strive to protect? Isn’t your end of the age of entitlement just code for a user-pays capitalist small-government, tax-free wonder-land?

Well, had I known you meant to end this definition of entitlement, I would never have felt relief. You need a reality check Joe. Rights are not entitlements. And someone like you, with your family background, would surely understand this if you ever cared to think about it, perhaps while you’re enjoying a quiet sit and a cigar. On the profile on your website, you have published this:“Joe Hockey was born in North Sydney, as the youngest of four children. His father was born in Bethlehem of Armenian and Palestinian parentage and his Mum in Chatswood. His family worked hard running a small business on the North Shore, beginning with a deli in Chatswood and later, a real estate agency in Naremburn.” So you like to portray your family story as the classic ‘we pulled ourselves up from the bootstraps’ tale of social mobility. And like so many who have come before you having found riches and success in your careers, you now seem hell bent on destroying mobility for others by burning the ladder of opportunity that you climbed to the top. And that’s what you really meant when you said it is time to end the age of entitlement.

You’ve got it so wrong Joe. Social mobility is not an entitlement. Access to social mobility is a right. And it’s a right Australians will, when they wake up to you, fight to save. You and your rich Liberal Party chums portray the true meaning of entitlement through your little glass tower of privilege where you think it’s ok to simultaneously reap the rewards of tax-payer funded wealth, while destroying the rights of the community by wrecking the public policies designed to keep the playing field level. Shame on you Joe Hockey. Shame on you and your entitled Liberal government.

Yours Sincerely

Victoria Rollison

First Australia, now Scotland – Liberals share their offensive comments with the world

Tony Abbott’s ‘Scottish’ gaffe wraps up what has been another gaffe-ridden week from a gaffe-ridden government, writes Vivien Fleming.

In a week when we all thought no one could top Treasurer Joe Hockey’s comments about the poor not having cars, or not driving them too far, our “Esteemed Leader” Tony Abbott has now infuriated supporters of Scottish independence. Whilst Sloppy Joe was putting his foot even deeper into his mouth and clearly exhibiting the depth of his ideological disdain for all but the top 1% of society, Sir Pository was escaping the storm of the previous weeks’ Septimana Horribilis in Europe. Under the delusion that he is a respected “World Leader”, Sir Pository found time during his tax payer funded junket to grace the shores of the Old Dart.

Whilst in the London Sir Pository spoke to The Times and told reporter Giles Whittell that:

“As a friend of Britain, as an observer from afar, it’s hard to see how the world would be helped by an independent Scotland.

“I think that the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom, and the countries that would cheer at the prospect… are not the countries whose company one would like to keep.”

The criticism of this unsolicited diatribe was swift with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, responding on BBC Scotland that:

“Mr Abbott’s comments are hypocritical because independence does not seem to have done Australia any harm.

“They are foolish, actually, because of the way he said it. To say the people of Scotland who supported independence weren’t friends of freedom or justice, I mean, the independence process is about freedom and justice.”

 

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Image courtesy of www.telegraph.co.uk. No copyright infringement intended

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond (image courtesy of telegraph.co.uk)

 

Nine News has further reported that Mr Salmond stated on the BBC on Saturday that:

“He’s previously insulted the indigenous people of Australia, he’s insulted women in Australia, now he’s insulting Scots Australians – I don’t know if there’ll be anybody left for Mr Abbott to insult.”

Clearly Mr Salmond is more conversant with Australian politics than our English born Prime Minister is of the Scottish Independence debate. Sir Pository, who chose only to take out Australian citizenship at the age of 23 to receive a Rhodes Scholarship, caused outrage and offense to indigenous Australians in July when he supported the legal fiction that Australia was Terra Nullius (Latin: Land belonging to no one) at the time of British occupation:

“As a general principle we support foreign investment. Always have and always will. …Our country is unimaginable without foreign investment. I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land.”

Sir Pository is infamous for his insults to women. In his 20-member Cabinet, only one woman was sufficiently meritorious to warrant a place in its hallowed halls. Abbott was quick to defend his position by stating:

”There are some very good and talented women knocking on the door of the cabinet and there are lots of good and talented women knocking on the door of the ministry.”

 

Image courtesy of www.theaustralian.com.au. No copyright infringement intended.

Image from theaustralian.com.au

 

Perhaps the most famous of Abbott’s anti-women quotes is from the beginning of his journey into politics. As a member of Sydney University’s Student Representative Council in 1979 Sir Pository stated:

“It think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”.

Not surprisingly YES Scotland has pilloried Sir Pository’s interference. A comical Tweet presents a faux announcement from the Australian High Commission London under the hand of Sir Les Patterson. Naturally, Sir Les is pictured on a toilet seat with his pants down.

 

View image on Twitter

 

The Australian public waits with bated breath for news on the latest victims of the Foot in Mouth Epidemic currently sweeping through COALition ranks.

This article was first posted on The Abbott Proof Fence and has been republished with permission.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Some Sacrifices Are Good, While Others Just Primitive!

“Asked about his threat on Wednesday to look for other savings measures that by-passed the senate, Mr Hockey said the government was working hard to get what it laid on the table through the parliament.

He agreed some of his budget measures meant Australians would have to make sacrifices.”

 

news.com.au 17th July, 2014

 

“Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.

He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.”

Sydney Morning Herald, August 14th 2014

My rich friend picked me up today. We were going for lattes in spite of his obvious wealth. I mean it goes without saying that he’s very well off. He was driving a car and he was talking me over a kilometre to the coffee shop. When you factor in the return journey, that was well over a mile in the old scale – just in case Abbott has returned us to imperial measurements by the time you’re reading this.

Of course, I asked him to pay for the coffee – anyone who can drive that far must clearly be able to spring for a cup of coffee for a poor writer like myself, but he seemed to have heard that the age of entitlement was over and suggested that as he’d already driven there then perhaps I should be the one paying for the coffees as people like him – the ones that own cars – had already contributed enough to the likes of me.

I had to admit that he had a point, so while I ordered the coffees he picked up the newspaper.

“Jihad Bludgers” screamed the headline.

“Mm,” I speculated, “surely The Herald-Sun isn’t suggesting that the jihadists aren’t working hard enough to make it happen.”

“No,” he explained, “apparently when they go overseas, the Government’s been cutting them off the welfare payments.”

“That seems a bit unfair. Why isn’t everyone on the dole stripped of their entitlements whenever they go on one of their overseas jaunts?”

“I think they would be, but I don’t actually think that people on the dole travel overseas all that often.”

“Right – so they’re not treating these people any differently. I guess they need to be careful how they report this, given the government’s broken promise on 18C, which we shouldn’t really consider a broken promise because he really meant it at the time and it’s only because of those bludging jihadists that he’s had to change his mind.”

“Yes, Andrew Bolt’s been writing about stopping Islamic migration for week’s now and because we haven’t removed 18C he can only vilify them on the grounds of religion, not which country they come from.”

“He hasn’t just been writing about that. Last week he was concerned about all the people writing anti-Semitic things about Israel.”

“Doesn’t he support the right to free speech?”

“No, it’s ok to be a bigot. But only if you’re bigoted against people he doesn’t like.”

“At least he’s consistent then.”

“Yeah, I can respect someone who has a different view, as long as they’re consistent.”

“Like Maurice Newman.”

“What’s he consistent on?”

“The only thing that matters is making money. That – and climate change being a myth.”

“No, I think you’ll find that’s not what he believes.”

“Really?”

“Yeah, he has an opinion piece in today’s Australian saying that we weren’t prepared for global cooling which is what one person is predicting, so I guess that means if the planet’s cooling then he must believe in climate change. Then he compared climate change measures to primitive societies making sacrifices to appease the gods.”

“Oh, I thought the Business Council wanted Australians to make sacrifices to get the Budget back in order.”

“Yes, but that’s completely different.”

“How?”

“In the same way that the ABC is biased and how when they have people from the IPA on, they never give them a chance to speak on climate change.”

“You think the ABC is biased? Don’t they have to ensure balance?”

“They’re meant to. But I was talking to a man the other day who said that he tried to get on after a scientist had described Mars as a lifeless planet. This guy – Bruce, I think his name was – said he was writing a book about how Mars is populated by tiny bugs and this is why the Martians had to move to earth and infiltrate our political ranks. And when he asked the ABC to stick to their charter of balance, they told him to come back when the book was published. Which, of course, will never happen.”

“Because the Martians will stop its publication?”

“No, of course not. It won’t get published because the man’s a raving lunatic who refuses to send it to publishers for fear that they’ll change the words.”

“So why do you think the ABC should have given him time?”

“For balance. I mean, people who are raving lunatics have a right to be heard too.”

“But don’t they get heard in the letters section of The Herald-Sun?”

“I just think if it’s good enough for the ABC to interview Eric Abetz, then why should they draw the line at a man who thinks we’re being invaded by Martians?”

“Surely, they have to draw the line somewhere. Why on earth would you interview a man who had no qualifications on the subject, no evidence and no idea what he was talking about just to achieve balance?”

“Now just a sec, it wasn’t the ABC who did the George Brandis interview on metadata…”

Our lattes arrived. At this point we always stop talking, because I have it on good authority that all latte saucers are bugged so that the government can listen to the likes of me as we plot its downfall.

But trying getting that on the ABC!

 

 

Joe Hockey, which planet do you live on?

To Joe Hockey.

The news that a young homeless couple were found dead in their car was news that you would, in an indirect way, find offensive.

It was not their death that offended you, but a certain reaction to it.

But first to the young couple:

Police say the 27-year-old man and 24-year-old woman, both from Ballarat and believed to have been living in the car, were using a butane gas heater to keep the chill away when they died.

Most decent people – upon hearing of these tragic deaths – would have in all likelihood been deeply saddened. The life situation of this poor young couple was also tragic. As too it is with thousands of young Australians living like this. Jobless. Homeless. Penniless. Desperate.

It is a sad reality that some jobless, homeless, penniless people die. Thankfully, the numbers are small. The welfare system in Australia has always provided something for those desperate people; a fortnightly dole payment which could ensure they at least could have access to the most basic of human needs; food, shelter, medications and clothing.

But now back to you.

You were offended that Wendy Harmer (of ‘The Hoopla’ fame) tweeted that this incident (the deaths in Ballarat) may not be the last as your budget starts to bite. You fired back, with this ignorant, pathetic response:

Really, which planet do you live on?

So it is your opinion that Wendy doesn’t think before she tweets. Well I think she does. She obviously thinks more about the social horrors that your budget will cause than you yourself have given a moment’s thought to.

If you cannot fathom that people with no money for food or shelter may die of hunger or exposure then you live on a different planet to the one I do, Wendy does, or anybody I could care to name.

There is something else you don’t seem to understand: desperate people do desperate things. Sleeping in a car is a measure of desperation. As is by need going without food or medication.

None of this bothers you. If it does then I’m yet to see, read or hear any indication of such. Yet you’re offended over a tweet though: a tweet that spells out the bleeding obvious.

It’s not as though Wendy’s claim is any revelation. Since the budget was handed down (and even before it was handed down) to a shell-shocked nation the media has been filled with the predictions this horror budget will cause. People could die. People could also turn to crime if their survival depends on it. You can read such predictions on news.com.au. Or here on theage.com.au. Or here from the chronical.com.au. Or on dozens of other sites, if you care to look, as I have.

And don’t just stop at the articles: have a look at reader’s comments. They have been predicting the same social destruction echoed by Wendy.

If you had been alert to what people were saying then I can assume that you would have been offended long before Wendy’s tweet. I can’t find any indication that you’ve been aware of not only how people feel, but of the tragic fate that awaits many of them. I’m guessing that you haven’t listened to anyone, except of course, the highly paid bureaucrats that are paid to tell you what you want to hear.

That you should only now stop to listen, and in response spew forth the shock and horror of being offended at the cold hard truth, is behaviour I find difficult to comprehend.

If the ‘age of entitlement’ is over – as you have been constantly trumpeting in an effort to justify your cruel budget – then I guess it means that people are no longer entitled to secure and basic needs. I find that truly offensive. Repulsively so.

Mr Hockey, brace yourself. Your days of being offended have only just begun.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Honesty … what’s that?

When the Charter of Budget Honesty was introduced by the Howard/Costello government in 1998 it was intended to provide a framework for the conduct of Government fiscal policy.

“The purpose of the Charter is to improve fiscal policy outcomes. The Charter provides for this by requiring fiscal strategy to be based on principles of sound fiscal management and by facilitating public scrutiny of fiscal policy and performance.”

Broadly speaking, the Charter requires that budgets must be in balance over the course of the economic cycle, which means the government can run a deficit in bad times as long as there’s a surplus in good times. But, as Alan Kohler points out, the problem was it didn’t say how big these should be.

Stephen Anthony of Macroeconomics wrote in a report he did for the Minerals Council of Australia last year:

“Essentially, the fiscal strategy objective (of the Charter) provided the wrong diagnostic tool as a benchmark for success over the business and commodity cycle. As a result, governments spent up big in the boom and got caught on the down side of the cycle. Windfall tax receipts were frittered away.”

According to Macroeconomics, commodity boom windfall revenues contributed around $160 billion to the Commonwealth budget bottom-line up to 2011-12. Yet all that the fiscal strategy required was for the government to run a surplus – of any size.

Because the resources boom led to unexpected returns, there was no danger of being in deficit. Add to this the sale of many assets and there was a motza to play with. The Charter was still adhered to despite a huge spending spree.

The last five budgets of the Howard government contained net discretionary spending of $133 billion and net tax cuts of $117 billion. The structural deficit was set up by John Howard and Peter Costello and not corrected by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.

Prior to the 2010 election, Chris Berg of the IPA (and ABC) wrote an article bemoaning the leaking of the then Opposition policy costings.

The Charter allows the opposition to give Treasury its election promises to check the policy costs are correct. If they don’t, the government clobbers them for avoiding scrutiny. Hockey’s figures were subsequently found to have an $11 billion black hole, and the auditors found guilty of professional misconduct. No wonder they didn’t want them released early.

Berg suggested that this part of the charter overwhelmingly favours incumbent governments because they:

“have had three years to consult with Treasury’s nearly 1000 staff about future policies, test policy assumptions, and get Treasury’s recommendations. Much government policy is formulated by Treasury in the first place. By comparison, an opposition is just a few people in a room thinking up ideas.”

From what we have seen of the Abbott government so far, they haven’t expanded their consultative capacity regardless of how many expert public servants are at their disposal and they will sack or ignore anyone who offers advice they don’t want to hear.

In 2004, Ross Gittins wrote ”The government is largely feeding back to the bureaucrats their own costings, whereas the opposition runs a high risk of slipping up somehow and being monstered by the Treasurer.”

To address this problem, in 2012 Labor established the Parliamentary Budget Office.

“The role of the PBO is to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.

As set out in the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has the following functions:

•Outside the caretaker period for a general election – to prepare policy costings on request by Senators and Members of the House of Representative, with the requests and the PBO’s responses to be kept confidential if so requested by the requestor.

•During the caretaker period for a general election – to prepare costings of publicly announced polices on request by authorised members of Parliamentary parties or independent members.

•To prepare responses (other than policy costings) to requests relating to the budget by Senators or Members of the House of Representatives.

•To prepare submissions to inquiries of Parliamentary committees on request by such committees.

•To conduct research and analysis of the budget and fiscal policy settings.”

One would have thought that the Charter and the PBO would have helped towards keeping the bastards honest but no, both sides still play silly buggers. They are under no compulsion to release costings by a set date and we have been subjected to the debacle of giving interested voters only a day or two to digest the material on many crucial policies. Others, like the NBN or Direct Action, are unable to be costed either due to lack of technical expertise or lack of policy detail. The PPL was based on rubbery assumptions which made the confidence level very low.

And then we have the manipulative approach to reporting that Joe Hockey sells to naïve voters. He pulled some pre-election stunts by using accrual rather than the accepted cash basis.

Image from facebook.com

Image from facebook.com

“Mr Hockey today admitted to using the accrual rather than cash bottom line for their numbers – which makes any figures Mr Hockey produces look much rosier than they actually are. The difference between cash and accrual bottom lines across the forward estimates is $16.6 billion. Were Federal Labor to use an accrual bottom line, it would be in surplus a year earlier, in 2015-16. What this means is that Australians will never truly know the state of the budget under an Coalition Government.”

And now, rather than using the independent PEFO as the true state of the inherited debt and forecast for the future, Hockey is using his propaganda sheet MYEFO, which included his revenue and discretionary spending decisions, as the starting point for comparison of how the government is performing fiscally. MYEFO is effectively saying that, under Coalition policies and spending commitments as they stood in December 2013, the gross debt in ten years’ time would be $667 billion. He then somehow sells that as Labor’s fault. I would love to see the same analysis done to the Howard government – what the debt would have been in ten years if his spending continued unabated. Using actual net debt when referring to the Coalition and projected gross debt when talking about Labor is blatantly designed to misinform.

It was interesting to read in the recent Commission of Audit that they recommend the transparency and rules about fiscal statements need to be tightened up.

“Budget transparency allows for a more informed public policy debate, fosters credibility and helps the community better understand fiscal policy. Improved fiscal transparency can assist in highlighting current and emerging fiscal risks, and in driving the necessary change in the community’s expectations of government.

Improved budget reporting requirements would improve transparency and accountability and assist the government in achieving its medium‑term fiscal strategy.”

They also take a veiled shot at Hockey’s forecasts and express their confidence in Treasury figures.

“Recent budget documents have reported large downward revisions to the economic and revenue forecasts. Against this backdrop, a number of concerns have been raised about the transparency of current forecasting arrangements.

The Review of Treasury Macroeconomic and Revenue Forecasting (Australian Government, 2012) found that ‘Treasury’s forecasts are comparable with, or better than, those of official agencies overseas’.”

The report goes on to recommend some changes.

“One option for Treasury to improve the transparency of budget forecasts would be to require a further formal consultation with a panel of experts before budget forecasts are finalised.

Another option which improves transparency about how the Budget forecasts compare with the views of other forecasters could be achieved by requiring comparisons to be published between key economic forecasts and relevant consensus forecasts.

Confidence intervals could also be published for key forecasts.”

All I can say is good luck with that!

I am expecting General Jim Molan (retired) to be brought out of mothballs (if anyone can find him since he was given $1 million to be our ‘Special Envoy’ smashing the people smuggling business) and given Martin Parkinson’s job at Treasury. Launch Operation Bamboozle where, in the national interest, they will no longer be giving the financial bandits a regular update on fiscal matters.

“The repair job started from day one obviously with the election of the new government but it accelerates from today given that we will see the full extent of Labor’s debt and deficit disaster.” – Tony Abbott, December 2013

MATHIAS CORMANN: “Labor left behind a debt and deficit disaster after completely mismanaging public money over six years in government. We are taking responsibility to fixing up the mess they left behind.” July 16 2014

Joe Hockey: “There’s no crisis at all in the Australian economy,” July 26 2014

Honesty … what’s that?

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Black hole filler.

Three days ago, Joe Hockey made some rather nasty threats about further cuts.

“Labor should now support their own budget measure, and if they do not, they must immediately outline how they intend to fund their own budget black hole while they are opposing $40bn in budget savings,” Hockey said.

Well Joe….here are some I prepared earlier:

Cap and freeze defence spending at $20 billion a year. If a real threat emerges we can increase this. Saving $50 billion.

Cancel the order for the 58 extra jet fighters and get by with the 14 we have already ordered. Saving of $24 billion.

Cancel the changes to the Paid parental leave Scheme. Saving $22 billion.

Cancel Direct Action and keep the carbon pricing scheme. Saving of $10.6 billion.

Scrap the fuel tax credit to mining companies. Saving $11 billion.

Scrap the fuel excise indexation. Loss $3.4 billion. Net saving $7.6 billion.

Keep the mining tax. Saving $5.3 billion.

Find a better solution for asylum seekers that does not involve our Navy except to rescue people in distress, does not involve offshore processing, and most definitely does not involve disposable life-rafts costing millions. One that actually helps people. If you let them work while their application was being processed we might actually get some taxes from them rather than incarcerating them or giving them below poverty handouts. Saving…..hard to tell but it would be several billion.

Scrap the 1.5% decrease in company tax until the country can afford it. Also scrap the 1.5% levy for the PPL.

Keep the requirement for people claiming car business usage to maintain a log book for 3 months once every 5 years to justify their claim. Saving $1.8 billion.

Make the 2% increase in taxation on income over $180,000 permanent. How much this will make is dependent on if we tighten up on tax avoidance, otherwise the revenue will be nothing and for those as creative as Rupert and Google, we could end up owing them money.

Negative gearing should only apply to new building with certain greenfield developments slated as owner-occupied only.

Introduce a Financial Transactions Tax on various categories of financial transactions including: stocks, bonds and currency. If implemented on a global basis, its projected revenue could be as much as US$400 billion a year, depending on the size of the levy imposed, the size of the reduction in trading (if any), and the number of implementing countries/jurisdictions. In the US alone it has been estimated that annually, between US$177 and $353 billion could be raised. A flat rate of 0.05% has been proposed on all financial market transactions, many experts actually advise vary rates (of between 0.01 and 0.5%) depending on the transaction (stocks, bonds, currency, commodities, swaps, derivatives, etc). The UK stock exchange, one of the largest in the world, already has a 0.5% tax on share transactions.

Forget buying Tony a fleet of new planes to carry around business people and journalists. Saving over $600 million.

Keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Saving $400 million.

Tighten up the tax concession for superannuation. There are huge savings to be made there. At least reinstate the tax targeting earnings on superannuation pensions above $100,000. Saving $313 million.

Cut the exploration subsidies to mining companies. Saving $100 million.

MPs should fly by commercial flights rather than private jets. Flights to football games, the races, weddings, book signing tours, charity events, fun runs, should be paid for by the MP rather than being seen as an entitlement. Accommodation for these events will also not be provided as an entitlement. Don’t know how much it will save but Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader claimed over $1 million a year in entitlements. Use telephones and teleconferencing more.

Legalise voluntary euthanasia. This not only gives terminally ill people a choice which may give them peace of mind, it would also save an enormous amount of money which is spent in the last month or two of life.

So stop the threats Joe. There are far better ways than increasing inequity. Entrenched poverty is not a legacy many would aim to leave.

 

The Hockey Budget to nowhere, going nowhere

With the government facing a hostile Senate passing all of its Budget measures, John Massam reflects on how wicked and unnecessary this Hockey Budget actually is. And the contrived ‘budget emergency’ – popularly spouted by our Treasurer – also appears to have been adopted by a State counterpart.

The Hockey Budget of May 13 seems to be the most wicked since the budgets of the Great Depression of 1929-41. Those cheese-paring budgets and large wage cuts left Australia unprepared for the attempted invasion during the Second World War. Global austerity had ruined the lives and psyches of millions throughout the world, and had triggered Fascist and Communist dictatorships. However, when the Second World War broke out, after about a year, rivers of credit then appeared out of thin air, and after the war the cash kept flowing to re-absorb the armed forces and the male workers in the defence industries.

There is a A$97,570,000,000 Australian “Future Fund” earning dividends. For Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey, and the Finance Minister, the future HAS COME – pay off debts.

It is alarming to learn that the Australian national debt is $339 TRILLION (that is, $339 thousand million) and rising; the annual interest bill is $11 trillion, according to the Debt Clock. (Each citizen’s share is A$14,450).

Soon after being elected, in October 2013 one of the new Abbott Government’s silliest actions was to give $8.8 billion (that is, $8,800,000,000) to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which had not requested any money. (See also The West Australian, page 15, Tue May 20, 2014).

That RBA $8.8 billion, plus the $97.57 billion in the Future Fund, ought to be immediately used to pay off some of the $339 trillion debt, thus saving trillions of dollars now and into the future.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S CONTRIVED CRISIS

Just like the Federal financial situation, the supposed crisis in Western Australia’s State finances had also been carefully contrived, by taking on unnecessary public works like digging up the Perth Esplanade, and removing the school-children’s tiles at the Bell Tower. Mr Colin Barnett’s Liberal-National government plans to build ovals for million-dollar-a-year footballers. Another waste was spending millions removing the Perth tunnel’s emergency lanes, just as a coroner in another state was recommending that tunnel emergency lanes be introduced there as a safety measure. The ministers sold land worth $90 million at Burswood for $60 million.

To catch great white sharks, blamed for killing several people, the Coalition spent millions of dollars on drum-lines, but though other sharks suffered, no great whites were caught.

Although the Barnett-Buswell government broke election promises such as not building rail to Ellenbrook, the W.A. debt rose from $4,000,000,000 in 2008, to $20 billion by Dec. 2013 (ST, 22 Dec 2013, p 57).

W.A.’s credit-rating fall from AAA to AA should be given a quadruple A award for deception.

The Liberal-National W.A. Government, while building a kind of palace for ministerial offices, even abolished the Government Astronomer. One wonders if he and his colleagues can be “retrained” to obtain other careers! Coffee-making baristas, lens grinders, or government “spin doctors”, perhaps?

While the Liberals-Nationals are planning to change the laws to introduce mandatory minimum crime sentences, there is a judge short on the W.A. Supreme Court, prisons are over-full, and a whole police training intake would have been cancelled, except for a public outcry. The compulsory amalgamation of local government councils will be forced through, no matter what the cost, defying the spirit of the W.A. Act.

FEDERAL $7 MEDICAL LEVY FOR SENIORS, SICK, AND CHILDREN

To return to the federal scene, do the Federal Liberals’ partners, the National Party (formerly the Country Party), really intend to saddle the old, the sick, and children with a $7 medical levy? Do they join in the pretence that some of the money will go into medical research, yet the Federal Government wants to take millions of dollars away from Australian research bodies like the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)?

Image by getup.org.au

Image by getup.org.au

Are our country cousins supporting the trickery of acting as if the medical researchers in our universities and teaching hospitals are not efficient? The W.A. burns cures discoveries alone prove their excellence. Yet universities are to have cuts. Are our Nobel Prize winners and their laboratories to be “privatised”? When everything has been sold, how will governments, State and Fedeal, “balance” their budgets then?

Have voters for the National Party already forgotten that the Liberal-National government was willing to allow Shepparton’s cannery to close in Victoria, thus threatening to ruin most of the small fruit-growers in the Goulburn-Murray Valley region? Have Liberal supporters forgotten that many small engineering enterprises will be ruined as the three car-manufacturers wind down? These metal-fabrication experts could be “retrained”, perhaps, to be prospectors?

Don’t the Coalition know that many overseas governments underwrite and subsidise industry and agriculture?

WASTE, SILLINESS, SELL-OUTS

Without consultation, Abbott’s boys (only one female minister) have ordered a larger number of warplanes than Labor did; these planes have no limit to their final cost, just like the Liberal-National coalition purchase of the F111s decades ago.

Another silliness is to plan to privatise the Royal Australian Mint, although for thousands of years governments have jealously guarded the right to mint coins, and in later centuries they forcibly took over banknote issuing from the private banks. Will the sell-outs of public assets be accompanied by the corruption that was recently uncovered in New South Wales, causing a Liberal Premier to resign that day?

UNIVERSAL LAND TAX – OTHER TAXES MINIMISED

As was reported in recent months, David Airey, a leading Perth real estate agent, suggested a no-exception land tax (I suggest about 5 per cent for a start, rising to no more than 10 per cent in future) on the land’s value (not the buildings, etc). A side benefit would be that this would slow down land speculation and the withholding of land. New home buyers might then have a chance of taking on affordable mortgages for land and houses.

Calculations are that this could pay all the government’s expenses. As this huge revenue came in, a priority must be to reduce and/or abolish the enterprise-stifling taxes like payroll tax, stamp duty, and the goods and services tax (GST). If the land-site revenue covers the running costs, income tax and company tax could be immensely reduced, moving towards abolition, as debt was gradually eliminated. In the meantime, negative gearing plus company tax evasion and avoidance could be stopped by a few simple laws.

A universal land tax idea, backed by some academics, was recommended in the Henry Report (Australia’s Future Tax System Review) around 2010. However, widening land tax was so unpalatable to the Big End of Town that the recommendation was dropped at once by the politicians.

An alternative is that Federal and State governments introduce the Tobin Tax – a small levy on every financial transaction. A 0.1 per cent Tobin Tax would collect huge sums from parasites such as those who use sophisticated computer programmes tied to the stock exchange to manipulate share prices by speculative buying and selling of shares, bonds, etc, in microseconds, thus cheating the ordinary Mum and Dad investors. It would raise $135 trillion (about a third of the national debt) at the start, but might decline markedly later.

If that tax is not acceptable, there are billions of dollars worth of minerals being exported, so a reasonable royalty per tonne would bring in millions or billions. Norway and other countries levy a very large percentage. Don’t charge on profits, because the multinational corporations and some big Australian investors are experts at exporting their profits overseas to places with little or no income tax.

It would be too much to expect that the politicians and their advisers would study how money comes into being, and so adopt credit policies, instead of debt policies.

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS, BUREAUCRATS

This is a nasty bankers’ budget. Just read the words of Treasurer Joe Hockey, in his speech “The end of the age of entitlement” on April 17, 2012, to the Institute of Economic Affairs, in London, when he said that bankers “have a more active role to play in policing public policy and ensuring that countries do not exceed their capacity to service and repay debt.

“This is playing out most dramatically in Europe where the European Commission and the European Central Bank are either directly or indirectly heavily influencing public policy in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, to name a few.” (page 14).

In plain speech, he was saying that the EU bureaucrats and the ECB bankers were calling the tune for an austerity campaign. Mr Hockey seems to be in thrall to what he called that mysterious and amorphous group defined as “bondholders” (page 4 of the same speech).

So, Mr Hockey in 2012 thought that it was good for Australia to accept the wrong-headed policies adopted under duress by those countries, even though they have led to higher unemployment plus hardship to small business in those lands, and have driven many people to bankruptcy, crime or suicide.

Wild riots and possible takeovers by dictatorships are quite possible in countries which take the International Monetary Fund’s poisonous medicines.

The brave little country of Iceland refused to take the advice of international funds and bankers, and took firm action. Icelanders have been saved from the artificial depression planned for them.

A most amazing fact is that when Mr Hockey took over as Treasurer after the September 2013 election win, it was brought to his notice that the Federal Parliament had set a debt ceiling of $300 billion, and this had nearly been reached.

He promptly said that Australia must not have a stoppage of government action like the United States had suffered twice in recent years, and the debt ceiling should be doubled. The high debt level was caused by the Labor Government, he said. Not long after he said that the debt ceiling should be tripled.

Another version in a report of December 5, 2013, said the Liberals wanted a $500 billion limit, but later did a deal with the Greens in the Senate to set it at $400 billion.

Before the 2013 election the Liberals had said they would reduce debt. Voters, another promise broken!

WORK TO 70, PREVENT YOUNGSTERS WORKING

The minor parties have a duty to stop the Government from expecting the old to work until 70, thus preventing the younger generation from starting careers, while ordering the under-25s who can’t get jobs to starve for six months. At present about 25 per cent of the young are unemployed, and this budget seems certain to increase the number of jobless.

To dismiss 16,000 public servants would turn them out onto the streets, and double the workload of those not dismissed. Perhaps they could “retrain” to be politicians?

These cruel Canberra federal policies would increase the crime rate and the demand for more prisons – and that would cost money (a State responsibility, no doubt!), and lead to more deaths, nervous breakdowns, and suicides. Will overworked police be less inclined than at present to investigate and prevent petty offences?

FOR 39 YEARS STATE LIBERALS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE MANAGERS

While in Opposition in 1975 Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser (later that year elected as Prime Minister) said that “those levels of government responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising the taxes.” (Malcolm Fraser; The Political Memoirs, 2010, M.Fraser and M.Simons, Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, page 278).

So, if this was principled “federalism policy” 39 years ago, why didn’t the Liberal-National Parties, which were at times running the States and the Northern Territory, keep out of debt by levying universal land tax, and/or revert to collecting income/company tax? Or is it easier to blame the Federal Government when States are reducing the police forces, cutting the number of judges, and under-staffing hospitals and schools?

The Liberal Party has a cheek asking the disadvantaged to stand on their own two feet; this was exposed as hypocrisy in the news-item “Pay your way, backer tells Libs,” The West Australian, page 3, Feb 7, 2014. The party’s WA branch has been operating rent-free in Menzies House, Level 4, 640 Murray St, West Perth, for decades. The landlord is now giving them their own medicine.

In the minds of some Australians, perhaps the only Abbott policy that is working is Operation Sovereign Borders, which at present has stopped the ‘illegal’ undocumented clients of the people-smugglers coming in as asylum-seekers. But even those effective government instrumentalities are to be chopped up and the command structure amalgamated, presumably at great cost. Who knows if the new management will be asked to sack people after another demand for an “efficiency dividend”?

A real cost-saver would be to cut out “457 visa”, “student visa”, and “working visa” visitors who in a few year become Australian electors, at least until unemployment goes down to 1 or 2 per cent, not long-term 5 per cent.

Anyone who doubts my statements about the way the Money Lords over-awe nations’ governments ought to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, 2005, by John Perkins, Plume Publishing.

For an Australian perspective on deceit by the Big End of Town and the banksters, read Bankers and Bastards, 1992, by Paul McLean and James Renton, Hudson Publishing, Victoria, Australia.

Another eye-opener is The Secret Life of Real Estate and Banking, 2009, by Phillip J. Anderson.

My final word is that the Coalition is breaking nearly all of its pre-election promises, including “There will be no surprises,” just like the Labor Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government did. The latter tried to stave off the unnecessary Global Financial Crisis with its spending on Roads to Recovery (good) and Ceiling Batts (no OHS there! Dr Troy Delbridge was dismissed). Fortunately, the Senate and the States, if they stand firm, might be able to curb the Abbott-Hockey irrational and irresponsible plans that are likely to lead to a trade depression, and a down-spiral of budget deficits.

Fun With Numbers And Why Welfare Should Only Go To The Deserving

“This year the Australian government will spend on average over $6,000 on welfare for every man, woman and child in the country. Given that only around 45 per cent of the population pays income tax, the average taxpayer must pay more than twice this amount in tax to fund welfare expenditure.

“In other words, the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full-time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?”

Joe Hockey

A few weeks ago, I struggled to work out what on earth Joe meant by this. There are so many strange calculations in this that I suspect he was hoping that we just didn’t think about it and got angry at those people who are getting welfare.

Except that, apparently, the Australian government is spending $6,000 on every man, woman and child. Of course, this is an average. So I – as a taxpayer – am very angry that I’m not getting my $6,000 and it’s going to some lucky bastard whose got no job and gets to watch daytime TV in between surfing at Bondi while playing video games on their iPod.

And, as Joe pointed out – I’m working a month a year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. And yes, it’s not fair. So I decided not to think about it and get angry. Can this person come and do my job for that month? That would be fair.

When I suggested to an unemployed teacher that they could come and work instead of me, they were quite enthusiastic until I pointed out that they wouldn’t be paid – it was just to make it fairer because, after all, I’m working that month to pay for their welfare.

But even though I couldn’t convince somebody to work for nothing, I decided that Joe’s idea of telling us how long we’re working to pay for things was a good idea.

Taking average weekly earnings at approximately $1437 for a full time employer and multiplying this by 52, this means that the average taxpayer is paying approximately $12467 in tax each year.

So, the average taxpayer is working for 37 years to pay for the grant to build the Science Wing at the elite private school down the road.

The average taxpayer is working for 402 years to pay for the PM’s grant to Manly to build a new grandstand.

And finally, the average taxpayer is working for a million years in order to pay for the jets we intend to buy. Although this one makes me angry because if we have to work for this long the retirement age will have rise again, and, like the unemployed, these planes don’t work! Sorry, I forgot the money for this had been set aside, so it’s really no cost at all.

With commitments like these, I can see how I can’t possible spend a month working to support someone on welfare.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

To my local member

Karen McNamara and Lucy Wicks (Image from dailytelegraph.com.au)

Karen McNamara and Lucy Wicks (Image from dailytelegraph.com.au)

Dear Ms Lucy Wicks,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited advertising pamphlet. Unfortunately it contains a great many errors which I am sure you would prefer to know about rather than spreading incorrect information to your constituents, particularly since we are paying for your advertising.

You state that “Labor’s last Budget” projected a deficit of $50 billion in the 2013-14 financial year with no surplus over the forward estimates. This is entirely untrue unless Mr Hockey is a member of the Labor Party.

The last budget delivered by Labor in May 2013 projected a deficit of $18.0 billion.

In August Penny Wong and Chris Bowen released an updated Economic Outlook with a projected deficit of $30.1 billion moving to a surplus of $4 billion in 2016-17.

PEFO produced by Treasury and Finance in August agreed with the figures in the Economic Statement with a slightly larger projected surplus.

Three months into your term, Joe Hockey produced the MYEFO which estimated a deficit of $47 billion. To quote:

“The deterioration in the underlying cash balance since the 2013 PEFO is $16.8 billion in the 2013‑14 financial year and $68.1 billion over the forward estimates.

The deterioration in the budget position since the 2013 PEFO reflects two key factors:

– the softer economic outlook; and

– essential steps to address unresolved issues inherited from the former government.”

Your projections about a “softer economic outlook” have proven unfounded, as many thought they would, with growth continuing at a better than expected rate.

The “essential steps” you talk about were spending decisions made by the Coalition:

  • an unsolicited $8.8 billion gift to the RBA (with the $300 million a year in interest that loan will cost)

  • another $1.2 billion for offshore processing to go into the hands of security firms that maim and kill refugees.

  • restoring the $1.2 billion offered by Labor to the States who wouldn’t sign up for Gonski but hung out to sign up with you so they didn’t have to commit to increased State funding or performance evaluation.

  • some money into the Contingency Reserve for future superannuation liability for universities (sitting money in a slush fund for a rainy day while we pay interest on it).

  • giving up $2.9 billion in revenue including $1.8 billion in tax revenue from people who fraudulently claim business usage on their cars and $900 million in taxation from people drawing over $100,000pa from superannuation

We then move on to Mr Hockey’s budget brought down in May where we see that, since coming to office, you have borrowed an extra $50 billion – the gross debt has grown from $270 billion in September to over $319 billion. Your claim to be “reducing Australia’s debt” is rubbish as are the figures you use.

Now I have no problem with increasing the debt per se. What I DO have a problem with is you continuing to rail about debt and deficit as you continue to borrow money for the things you choose to spend money on.

And that is by far the greatest problem – not the spending but the priorities. You are inflicting dreadful harm on the most vulnerable in our society while choosing to spend a great deal of money on things we don’t need like school chaplaincy programs and marriage counselling vouchers and fighter jets and very expensive paid parental leave and Royal Commissions. These might be desirable in your opinion but they are hardly more important than education and health and welfare and jobs and affordable housing and childcare. You have cut funding to these most essential services and abolished advisory bodies.

You show your priorities by creating a highly paid job for Tim Wilson to be the Human Rights Commissioner in charge of repealing the racial discrimination laws while sacking the Human Rights Commissioner for the disabled.

You take money away from the Royal Commission into institutional child sex abuse to fund your pink batts political witch hunt.

You cut wage increases for aged care workers to provide bigger subsidies to the providers.

You cut wage increases for child care workers and cut the childcare rebate that parents will receive.

You make changes to the aged pension which, in the future, will increase inequity.

You give drought relief packages to farmers while disbanding water management groups and defunding research into irrigation and delaying the Murray-Darling buyback scheme, with no credible action to address the climate change that will send these very farmers to the wall. The photos of your party laughing and high fiving at the repeal of carbon pricing are looked on in disgust around the world.

You want to pay employers $10,000 to take on workers who are over 50 while telling our young unemployed that they must find a job or face 6 months a year with no income at all and cutting all the programs designed to help them find a job or suitable course.

You defund research causing many amazing programs with huge potential to be cut and scientists to leave our country.

You conscript a Green Army but then defund Landcare, the perfect people to oversee this group, and choose instead to give “service providers” tens of thousands of dollars per team and a free workforce who has no workplace entitlements.

You have slashed funding to Indigenous programs.

You have slashed foreign aid.

Yet you seem to have unlimited resources when it comes to searching for a lost Malaysian plane or fishing boats carrying a few refugees. And the defence budget just keeps on growing so fast they don’t know how to spend it all.

You promise me that my electricity bills will go down but I just got a letter saying prices will go up from July 1.

You say you are helping small business by reducing regulations. Tell that to small businesses involved in the health industry who will now have to administer your co-payment as well as GST. Will they have to fill in cards for concession customers and children to keep count of how many times they have paid a co-payment? Will you be developing and distributing the software to support this?

You claim to be saving $1 billion through cutting red tape for small business…could you tell me what you have done and how you came up with that figure? You cost us all money with the phasing out of the $6,500 instant asset write-off but I am yet to see anything that will help. Reducing company tax doesn’t help sole traders.

You say you are helping apprentices by allowing them to go into debt but you took away their tool allowance.

You say a new Commonwealth agency will open in Gosford bringing 600 new jobs to the coast. For starters, these aren’t “new” jobs as many people from the ATO have been sacked or will be offered relocation. Secondly, I notice you have steadfastly refused to answer any questions about this including why you are apparently building new premises when there are so many vacant already, and when this is likely to happen.

You will also need to adjust your boast about no successful people smuggling ventures. For my views on that I will refer you to Father Rod who was none too happy with the email you sent him from Scott Morrison on the eve of World Refugee Day.

“Firstly, I would like to say to Lucy Wicks that passing on this kind of misleading propaganda does your credibility no good.

Secondly, Mr Morrison has asked that I share this email. I do so gladly so that people may see this dishonest propaganda for what it really is. The use of language is interesting. The basis of this falsehood of that our borders are threatened. How can a few thousand weakened, terrified, dehydrated people threaten our borders? These Asylum Seekers are precisely that Asylum Seekers. They are not invading, or sneaking in or coming through the back door. The very nature of their journey means that the wish to declare their presence.

The entire foundation of the government’s policy is based on the lie that our borders are not secure. And this kind of propaganda is needed to sell the deception.

Not in our name Mr Morrison. You do not lie in our name.”

I have seen you asking Dorothy Dixxers in Question Time. Is that what we elected you to do? To read out lines you have been fed by others? You refuse to answer any questions and gag anyone who posts facts on your facebook page. Is your engagement to be limited to social functions, photo opportunities, and forwarding of party propaganda emails full of lies and distortions?

Your constituents deserve better than unthinking regurgitation. Our children deserve better from the future than what your party is offering. Do you feel no shame about leaving your children a society far worse than the one in which you grew up?

And before you start on the “Labor’s debt” line, I suggest someone in your party starts learning about Modern Monetary Theory and listening about the value of Job Guarantees and raising people out of poverty. Let demand drive supply and provide jobs. Your theory of trickle down economics is a proven front for those who facilitate corporate greed.

You disappoint me.

Kaye

Et fixa regimen Abbott praeteritum OR Let’s Examine The Respective Plans of The Parties.

Photo: Liberal Party of Australia

Photo: Liberal Party of Australia

Last week, while acting as goal umpire, I signalled a goal to our team. Although it came out of a pack, I had a clear view of the ball leaving the player’s foot and going through the goal. The opposition started screaming that it was touched. I was tempted to ask which of them thought touched it given they were all about a metre away from the ball, but instead simply signalled the goal. (In such decisions, the field umpire will call “Touched, all clear” if he heard or saw anything – he didn’t.)

As the ball was going back to the centre an opposition supporter called out that I was a cheat and that I knew the ball was touched. Clearly, he had a clear unbiased, unimpeded view from thirty metres away, and knew that I must be cheating. His attitude reminded me of the various times I’ve been attacked a “left-wing moorun” or “Labour party supporter”. Logic has nothing to do with the argument. For many, it’s simply: I disagree with you, therefore you’re biased and unable to see this clearly because you’re an idiot, and even though I can’t spell, this doesn’t detract from the fact that I am always right about absolutely everything.

I try to make sure that I don’t fall into the same trap. Perhaps, Andrew Bolt really does have a point when he says that it’s not white people who are racist, it’s Asians and those people with non-white skin that he’s not allowed vilify any more because the law prevents free speech. So, in order to be fair and balanced, I thought I’d just examine the way that both parties approach the future.

Labor

  • Wanted to improve school funding and adopted some of the Gonski modelling.
  • Introduced the NDIS to ensure that people with disabilities had a better quality of life.
  • Attempted to improve communications through the NBN.
  • Believed that those making “super” profits from digging up our resources could afford to contribute more to the country through taxation.
  • Moved to increase superannuation so that in the future people would be less reliant on the pension.
  • Believes that we need harsh deterrents to discourage people from coming by boat, because if we don’t have them, then the Liberals will frighten people in Western Sydney about “illegal immigrants” causing traffic problems.
  • Has committed to a modest target for renewable energies.

Liberals

  • Pushing for Latin to be studied in schools.
  • Put the Catholic Education Office of Western Australia in charge of schools program on Manus Island. (They do have a proud tradition of covering up abuse.)
  • Believes that everyone should pay their own way and not rely on handouts. (Unless they’re trying to run a court case against a politician such as a One Nation leader or an ex-Speaker.)
  • Thinks that funding public schools may not lead to better results, so let’s give the money to those parents struggling to afford private school fees.
  • Don’t believe that we need faster broadband because it’s only used to download movies and for playing games.
  • Believes that we should put in harsh deterrents to discourage people coming by boat. If you look at the history of boat people coming to Australia, the first group included convicts, who were poor and not the people of “calibre” that we won’t coming here (or having children). Later groups coming by boat included Tony Abbott, so you can see why Australians are against boat people.
  • Have appointed a diverse group of climate change sceptics to investigate our renewable energy target, and after spending a few weeks looking at the situation, will hand down a report saying that Labor got it wrong and we really should be trying to sell more coal.
  • Have introduced Knights and Dames.

On balance, you’d have to say that the Liberals have a clearer idea of what they want the future to look like.

P.S. I know that some rabid Liberal supporter will accuse me of deliberating ignoring the Budget deficit, but I feel that it’s been well covered in so many other areas. And yes, it is true that while Labor weren’t likely to return the Budget to surplus before 2017, the Liberals promise that they’ll do it within ten years. They also promised that they’d deliver Budget surpluses in their first term.

Also by Rossleigh:

Abbott Government Declares Unity Ticket With Obama on Climate Change!

Abbott’s Groan-Up Government!

Slackers, Slouch Hats, Slaves, Sex Workers and Salacious Winks.

Hockey’s lazy, lying helpers

It disturbs me that this email is hitting the in-box. Disturbing in that there appear to be a high number of Australians who are satisfied with the cruelty this government is dishing out to the nation’s underprivileged.

The email:

Subject: Written by a 21 year old female… Make her PM

“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living”.

This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare system that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

Put me in charge…

Put me in charge of Centrelink payments. I’d get rid of cash payments and provide vouchers for 50kg bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, basic sanitary items and all the powdered milk you can use. If you want steak, burgers, takeaway and junk food, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicare. The first thing I’d do is to get women to have birth control implants. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce, use drugs, drink alcohol or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

Put me in charge of compulsory job search. You will either search for employment each week no matter what the job or you will report for community work. This may be clearing the roadways and open spaces of rubbish, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your dooff dooff stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good”.

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realise that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our hard earned cash and housing assistance, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin someone’s “self-esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards those for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Centrelink income you no longer have the right to VOTE! For you to vote would be a conflict of interest… If you want to vote, then get a job.

Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON.

You may wonder why I’m giving publicity to this disgraceful email when the best option would have been to send it straight to the trash bin. Well, there’s a message in it. Not to the recipient, but to those low-life individuals who have it in their small minds that it should be, according to their wish, passed on. Instead, you can pass it back. I’m hoping that if you too receive the email you might have the urge to let the sender know about this:

Has anyone else seen this ??? It was sent to me today by an old friend. I call it “PUT ME IN CHARGE” and its message can be summarized by the final quote:

“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”

For me, this message beautifully addresses the ‘entitlement attitude’ that seems so common today amongst the electorate and it does so in a very interesting and forthright manner – somewhat blunt, maybe, but still an appropriate message just the same.

This was written by a British 21 yr old female who “gets it”.

Yes, a British girl. Note too the date: July 2012.

How she ended up being British I will never know. She used to be American. Well she was in 2011.

And how about “The problems we face today… “? Well they certainly weren’t written by a 21 year old girl from America, Britain, Australia or wherever the right-wingers wish to dig one up from. They can be credited to a fellow called Dan Cofall and I can assure you he definitely wasn’t referring to those damn Aussie welfare bludgers when he penned it.

The email itself isn’t as important as the knowledge that there are people in Australia who not only hold this opinion, but actually want to believe it. And if ‘believing’ it means they have to resort to perpetuating what is clearly a fabricated piece, then either they’ve bought the government’s line that the age of entitlement is over, or they have an inherently morbid attitude towards disadvantaged Australians that I am unable to comprehend.

And they resort to lies to promote it.

Let’s expose them.

More articles by Michael Taylor:

This government is now officially obscene

Can ‘The Australian’ stoop any lower?

Just a quick question; has the line been crossed?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Compare the pair

Joe Hockey’s budget has been widely rejected by the Australian people. And he knows it. How do I know he knows it? Because why else would he ramp up his rhetoric about welfare bludgers to desperation levels in such a whiney and pathetic tone?

This week Hockey’s been promoting hatred of welfare recipients by telling Australian workers that one month of their annual salary is being sucked away by these sub-human, leech-like, lazy, good for nothing dole bludging sloths. Ok, he didn’t exactly use these words, but this is the image he’s clearly trying to conjure up.

It is moments like these that I am reminded how important it is for independent media sites like this one, and independent voices, to get an alternative message out there. Because Hockey’s hobby of blaming Newstart and Pension recipients for all the world’s problems is not only bully-boy lazy, but it also completely misrepresents the situation to make it appear that the only people in society who benefit from government spending are those receiving welfare payments. And the mainstream media, on the most part, support this lazy myth.

The inconvenient truth for Hockey is that all Australians benefit from government spending of one kind or another, because without government spending there is no civilisation. And as I wrote recently, the key fact that Hockey will do his best to supress because it doesn’t fit his ‘let’s-blame-welfare-recipients-while-we-bring-about-an-ideologically-inspired-small-government’ narrative is this: it’s the rich who benefit most of all from the very existence of government. You don’t believe me? Well how about we compare the pair? Who’s really benefiting most from Australia’s publically-funded civilisation?

Olivia’s life
Olivia is 32 years old and rents a one bedroom studio apartment in western Sydney for $140 a week. Olivia has been out of work for two years ever since the manufacturing company she worked at sent all their factory jobs to China, and since then she’s been sending out resumes via the computer at her local library but hasn’t had a single call back. She completed a qualification in production systems at TAFE while she was working five years ago, but very rarely sees a job advertised requiring this qualification. Each week she receives a Newstart allowance of $255.25. After her rent and household power and water bills are paid, she is left with $90 a week for food (three meals a day across a week equates to $4.29 per meal, so sometimes she skips meals). Some of the food she buys includes GST so a portion of her spending goes back to the tax office. Olivia can’t afford to go out and walks everywhere as she can’t afford public transport. She avoids seeing a doctor as she can’t afford to go to the chemist to fill a prescription. She hasn’t bought new clothes in the two years she has been unemployed – when her clothes wear out she goes to the local op shop. Her TV broke eighteen months ago so she doesn’t have any entertainment at home, except when her elderly neighbour invites her over for a tea and they watch the ABC news headlines together. Olivia is an only child and her parents live on the Central Coast of New South Wales and don’t own a car, so she only manages to see them every few weeks when she has enough money for a train ticket. She has friends who call her sometimes to chat, but she can’t afford to call them as her phone never has any credit. Her friends don’t ask her out anymore because she can’t afford to do anything. Her life is lonely and miserable and most of the time she is depressed.

So let’s recap the benefits Olivia receives from government spending in an average week. She completed her education at a public school and co-funded her government funded vocational training at Tafe. She sometimes sees a bulk-billing doctor and if she got seriously sick or injured, she would have access to a public hospital. She could also call the police if ever she needed to. And she has received a Newstart allowance for two years, and hopes one day to find a job. So this hypothetical Olivia doesn’t exactly sound like someone who is really enjoying their ‘welfare Queen’ status while screwing tax payers, does it? She doesn’t sound like she’s benefiting that much from the civilisation she lives in.

Now let’s compare Olivia to Mark and Jenny:

Mark and Jenny’s life
Mark and Jenny, both 32 years old, live in a three bedroom townhouse in Wollstonecraft on Sydney’s north shore that they bought for $750,000 four years ago with help from both of their parents and the first home owner’s grant. Their home has appreciated by 4% each year since they bought it. Mark works as an accountant at a large pharmaceutical company in North Sydney, which sells many of its products via the government funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Mark takes the publically-subsidised train to work every day. Jenny works as a physiotherapist in a public hospital and drives to work every day on publically funded roads. Together they take home a weekly household salary of $3,000 after tax, and after they’ve paid their mortgage, they have around $2,000 each week to spend on life’s necessities like energy and water bills, insurance, internet, car payments, petrol, Foxtel, groceries, gym memberships, take away food, wine, beer, spirits, Friday night drinks, Saturday night dinner parties or movies, tickets to sporting events and concerts, designer clothes, books, magazines, gifts, pet toys, home wares and furniture. Each week they put money away in a savings account to pay for their yearly overseas holiday. Both Mark and Jenny needed a university degree to work as an accountant and a physiotherapist and they both contributed to the cost of their degrees through the HECS system, whilst most of the investment in their education was made by the government. Mark attended a public school and Jenny went to a private school, with the cost of her education partly funded by her parents and partly funded by the government.

Mark and Jenny have a good life and much to be grateful for. They are content in their work and have busy and enjoyable lifestyles. When you look closely at the lives of Mark and Jenny, you can see that government spending has not just influenced much of their success, but it has been at the very foundation of the civilisation where they enjoy their affluent lifestyles.

Joe Hockey (image from news.com.au)

Joe Hockey (image from news.com.au)

So back to Hockey. He is clearly trying to make the Mark and Jenny’s of the world resent Olivia. He wants Mark and Jenny to think about all the hard work they do each day (and no one is questioning that they do work hard) and to resent that some of what they earn is taken away from them and given to someone else who needs it. But what Mark and Jenny need to also understand is that they did not reach their level of happiness, comfort and first-world lifestyle on their own. The government funded civilisation that they live in enabled their lives and continues to enable their lives every day. It’s the fact that there are so many government-enabled lifestyles in Australia that makes Australia a rich country – a place where so many people make money by relying on others being able to afford whatever it is they sell. If there really is a class war going on in Australia as Hockey says there is, Mark and Jenny are winning and Olivia is clearly losing.

So rather than resent the tax that the likes of Mark and Jenny pay, and begrudging people like Olivia who benefit so little from our civilisation, how about everyone ignore Hockey and instead offer some gratitude for the opportunity they’ve been given to be part of a civilisation that gives them so much benefit? And how about some empathy for the Olivia’s of the world who exist day to day in poverty? Because the truth is, Olivia isn’t lazy. Olivia doesn’t bludge. Olivia just survives. And Olivia would love to pay as much tax as Mark and Jenny do, so as to reap the benefits of the position in their society that their highly-paid government enabled lifestyles affords them. Think about that next time you see Hockey blaming Olivia. Think about that next time someone talks about lifters and leaners.

Follow Victoria on Twitter