4 posts tagged “australian politics”
Sitting at work watching the proceedings of Senate Standing Committee Inquiry(R4100 Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009) yesterday, which was looking into the so-called misleading of Parliament by the Prime Minister in relation to lobbying on behalf of John Grant Motors, I had to wonder why public servants have to cop the garbage dished out by politicians.
The longer proceedings went on, the harder Messrs Abetz, Joyce and to a lesser extent Fifield attempted to put words in the mouths of Treasury functionaries Grech and Martine. On another level, it was quite fascinating to watch the adversarial nature of such an inquiry, in particular the way the 'prosecution' side of the inquiry go about phrasing and asking their questions. It's little wonder that senior public servants are paid as well as they are. The professionalism on display was among the best I have ever seen, particularly under duress. I'd recommend watching these type of proceedings to anyone with even a passing interest in the machinations of government.
Just what the Daily Telegraph or indeed, Malcolm Farr thinks they have on this issue remains a mystery. The more I watched the inquiry, the clearer it became that yet again, this issue seems to be another prime example of a main stream media beatup on the basis of rumour & innuendo.
UPDATE: Well, over two-and-a-half hours, the inquiry ended with Mr Grech undoubtedly one very rattled public servant. Martine, as the more senior of the two and the more 'appropriate person' to answer Abetz's continual attempts to put words in Grech's mouth, was masterful to watch. Calm, collected, highly professional, he stuck to his line and rightly so. It was blatantly clear that the Opposition think they have something, or at least thought they had something, courtesy of the News Corporation journalist, Steven Lewis, the author of the innuendo articles in the Daily Telegraph today. It's clear that Godwin Grech's public service career is now most likely over. He stated that he believed he recalled a document from the Office of the Prime Minister in relation to Grant Motors, however that document does not exist, and if it did, what did it say? We'll never know. Surely, if the Opposition had something with which to pin the government to the wall, they'd have produced the evidence. If Eric Abetz had something cogent to present to the inquiry, surely he'd have presented it and shut down his fellow Senator, Doug Cameron who was irate at the continual badgering of the public servant. It never happened. It's great theatre, but the reality looks as though that's all the issue will ever be.
Parliament is once again in session. We have the benefit of seven sitting days in the next fortnight, a week break then four more days for the lower House. Eleven sitting days out of twenty working days. Nice work if you can get it. Senators have it even easier with seven sitting days out of twenty. Just thought I'd point that out to anyone wishing to say pollies work hard.
ABC Newsradio broadcast the Senate today, more's the pity, when question time in the House would have been far more entertaining. Personal preferences aside, I was interested to hear quite a number of clearly partisan points of view being expressed today by coalition Senators over the latest Rudd government stimulus package. Claims of a return to the Whitlam era, of socialist tax-and-spend Laborite policies and abandonment of so-called fiscal conservative ethics were bandied around like chaff in a high wind. None of these claims with any basis in fact, and none which take into account the current economic impacts being felt across the country and across the globe. Neo-liberalism is far from dead, it seems. It's attitudes live on in the conservative side of politics. One wonders what conservatism would be doing currently, were the situations reversed? The current economic fracas was coming like a runaway juggernaut in any event. The flavour of politics in any country matters not a whit as to which ideology is best placed to handle the impacts. Suffice to say though, that conservatism would doubtless be attempting stimulus through idiotic suggestions such as placing a moratorium on compulsory superannuation. Aid business at the cost to the worker. Thankfully that suggestion, along with a mooted cut to the GST, haven't and aren't likely to raise their ugly visages whilst sensible socially constructive attitudes hold sway.
Social democracy is the right tack to take in the current times. Protect those who need it most, while stimulating business through providing liquidity for consumption. Creation of jobs through public infrastructure projects. Protection of jobs as much as is possible without direct interference in the labour market, is essential to ensuring a trained workforce remains in place for when the economic tides turn. The costs of re-training in the future far outweigh the cost of retention now.
I applaud the latest stimulus package as being the best of a poor selection of available options. No tax cutting, which is vital to maintaining what tax base remains, while spending on job creation and protection of personal and business interests all get a look in. Impacts will not be immediate and likely won't be properly felt until after the next electoral cycle due in mid to late 2010. By that stage, Australia's budgetary deficit is likely to have exceeded A$40b. Political gamesmanship aside, it is hoped that by November 2010 the global economy will be showing signs of recovery as the benefits of careful Keynesianism start to show. We're lucky in Australia, because of the recently ended resource boom, and we'll recover quicker as need for our resources return. If the Rudd government have to borrow to keep Australia at the current status quo, then I say borrow. When the global economic drought ends, those who have planned to catch the rain, will.
If you're anything like me - an early fifties boomer, looking forward and planning for a retirement from a constant daily grind by age 65 at the latest - you'll be as aghast as I was at this.
At what age would the bean counters, like Ken Henry, prefer workers to look at retiring? 70? 75? Why not simply keep on keeping on until toilet visits to change incontinence pads become too much of a time burden on the employer? Of course, then there's the possibility that an aged worker might not only piss themselves, but actually drop dead at the grindstone. Can you imagine the kerfuffel over something like that? Still.....a legislative amendment should absolve the employer of any obligations to family or estate.
This proposal, contained in this discussion paper, makes the following observation:
An immediate and obvious solution to the increasing costs of providing the Age Pension is to increase the Pension Age. The current Pension Age of 65 was originally set in 1908. Age Pension reform options when life expectancy for males at 65 was 11.3 years. The evidence usually provided in support of an increase in Age Pension age is that life expectancy for a male at age 65 has increased to 18.1 years
A compulsory increase in the Pension Age reduces the period of payment of benefits, thereby reducing the total benefits paid. This is certainly a step that has been taken by other countries. However, a compulsory approach will be politically unpopular; therefore it is worth also considering the implications of this approach and other approaches to reducing the reliance on the Age Pension
A compulsory increase in the Pension Age reduces the period of payment of benefits, thereby reducing the total benefits paid. This is certainly a step that has been taken by other countries. However, a compulsory approach will be politically unpopular; therefore it is worth also considering the implications of this approach and other approaches to reducing the reliance on the Age Pension
Increasing the Pension Age can be politically difficult, so it is interesting to note that since the early 1990s a third of OECD countries have increased the Pension Age for men and two thirds for women. Many countries are increasing or have increased the Pension Age for women to equal that of men
How bloody exciting! I can look forward to an additional 6.8 years over someone born around the turn of the century. Given that over 100 years, an individual's life 'expectancy' has improved by that much, it looks like I can 'expect' to snuff at age 83, or 2040, as the paper suggests. I smoke, and I drink. Not much admittedly, but Mr Murphy maintains that if I'm going to get crook, it'll probably be within 10 years of retiring, say age 75. If the age at which I can access the aged pension is raised to, say 68, forcing me to remain in the workforce for another three years, I'll effectively be cheated out of three years of a quality retired lifestyle because a mob of bean counters and previous governments that couldn't get their shit together sufficiently to allow me to enjoy a retirement I've been looking forward to and planning for the last decade.
All this, and a cut to Company Tax as well! That's really going to look after an ageing population, isn't it? Yeh, pig's arse! Word to the wise and all you ten-foot-tall-bullet-proof twenty-somethings. Retirement is worth looking forward to, but don't expect the society you'll work your arse off for to be there in your dotage. It simply ain't gonna happen.
Let this be a warning to anyone who thinks that a conservative brand of Federalism is good for a democratic Australia.
Tony Abbott, in his ever predictable, hard right-wing way, has warned all believers in the necessity for checks and balances on the probability of an all-powerful Federal government, against the election of any brand of conservatism containing him, or anyone who desires to resurrect the Howardian legacy we've thankfully shed.
His argument, if indeed there is one, makes no sense when considered against the background of just why we have a Federal system of State and Commonwealth governments, with separated powers and responsibilities. Abbott claims the current system exists as a hangover from 19th century compromises in order to achieve a unified Federation called Australia. Such is not the case, as anyone who takes the time to read and understand the intent of the Australian Constitution, at least insofar as Section 51 is concerned, will attest. The Constitution may not be a perfect construct, just as Abbott's version of all-encompassing Commonwealth-empowered brand of Federalism would not be. We've already had a taste of that brand of Federalism through the Howardian exercising of subsection 20 of Section 51, the Corporations Power.
Inconsistencies exist, to be sure, and in a democracy, those inconsistencies can be challenged. This is why Australia has a forum for adjudication known as the High Court. That place is where the Constitution is to be held to account. Not in the op-ed pages of a known ideologically driven media outlet and not by a self-declared proponent for abolition of State responsibilities and associated checks & balances on Commonwealth power.
