Author Topic: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics  (Read 10508 times)

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« on: March 31, 2015, 04:50:26 AM »
Have a habit of derailing other people's journals (sorry BigChrisB), so instead I'm going to start a new thread and try not to derail it after half a post. There's enough of us here for a pretty robust discussion I think.

Sitting down to watch Lateline tonight, Emma Albarici talking about the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). I don't understand it, because no details have been released lol. No one really seems to know what it will mean.

Hockey is in a bit of a bind over the budget, there just isn't any money left. Bit sick and tired of seeing pollies from both sides announce grandiose new spending plans. Where the hell is the money coming from?

Used to be someone who was comfortable with deficits (2008-2011). After that I feel there's no excuse for it, time to exercise some frugality in a meaningful sense.

So what will be in the budget? Will there be any of the following?

- a focus on the age pension and assets test
- a look at negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts/concessions
- tweaks to the GST
- higher education reforms
- changes to childcare rebates
- changes to parental leave schemes
- changes to Medicare/co-payments
- company tax cuts
- adjustments to dividend imputation (non refundable franking credits?)
- tightening of multinational tax
- Direct Action?
- Social Security - Newstart, Disability, Family Tax Benefits (A & B), Carers, Sole Parents
- Infrastructure - Roads, NBN, Rail, Renewables
- Metadata retention (half a billion that one is going to cost us)
- indexing of tax thresholds to avoid bracket creep

So much happening. Like every year, the political system seems capable of designing a horse but ends up delivering a 2 arsed donkey.

Sunnymo

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2015, 02:49:56 AM »
I think one that could well be looked at is tightening up of concessions around lump sums and 'catch up' contributions to Super. If you finished uni/school and started work when super was introduced in 1992 you are now in your early to mid 40's. So the need for older workers to make large one off contributions to get their balances to 'critical mass' is falling and will continue to diminish so I wouldn't be surprised to see these concessions start to taper off. If this is considered there would need to be some thought around those that are not PAYE employees.

Higher education reforms is tricky; they are currently sitting on a double dissolution trigger which they won't want pull. If they do the senate votes to get elected quota will halve, potentially increasing (possibly doubling) the number of minor party/independent senators to negotiate each piece of legislation with. I don't see how they can try and introduce widely different reforms in this area without issues and/or ridicule.

JLR

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2015, 03:51:52 AM »
Replying to follow.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2015, 03:54:23 AM »
This is that $540,000 bring forward 3 year rule right?

Pay in $30k concessional and $180k non-concessional on 30 June and $30k concessional and $540k on 1 July for husband and wife and a couple can put $1,560,000 into Super in the space of 2 days.

Ultimate tax planning if you're luck enough to be in that situation.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2015, 03:55:15 AM »
Replying to follow.

Don't be shy... we all have to vote so we should all voice an opinion too :)

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9294
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2015, 05:36:57 AM »
I'm not much of a political commentator, preferring a low information diet when it comes to politics. Can't have too much of a good thing ;).I'm guessing there will be some tweaks to super,  too much cutting would lose govt, so some subtle taxation changes will slip in. Guess I have no confidence that Mr Abbott will produce anything too intelligent.

What I'd like to see is Australia move away from the economic growth model and towards sustainability, both economically and environmentally. I'm not an economist so I couldn't translate that into specific policy. I wouldn't describe myself as a died in the wool greenie either, but I'm becoming more convinced that if we don't stop raping the planet to make trinkets and baubles, we are going to increasingly be in a bother. Sooner or later we have to start looking after mother earth…and I think it had better be sooner.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2015, 06:15:39 AM »
I expect that very little will happen in the budget - it  has been put right according to our illustrious leader, so they can spend! And this budget was always going to be a soother - child care changes, reduced income tax for high earners, reduced company tax. I can't see changes to parental leave. Maybe they'll announce Dukes?

The other changes - GST, superannuation... are may be announced, but won't happen until the budget just after the election, and I'm not sure they will be announced. There appear to be some major changes but whether they make it to the budget, after the last fiasco - I really don't know.

EliseHearts

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
    • My Journal: Fire in 10 Years
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2015, 02:07:24 PM »
I always feel so disappointed and infuriated when I listen in to the political scene. Mostly I try and stay as far away from it as I can these days, so my awareness of what's happening is minimal and only third hand information.

I would be surprised if they made a significant change but the pressure is on...

Mostly my opinion is similar to happy's. I think it's about time we started investing in the people of Australia - increasing, expanding and fine tuning skills. Ensuring the next generation of the population has the knowledge to make changes and improvements in the world. Better yet, allow them to create businesses and opportunities from inside Australia - utilizing our people, land and technology to create some of the best businesses in the world. But of course the last thing politicians want is a smart populous who might see through their nonsense (ah, there you are cynicism).

But the thing that really gets my knickers in a twist is their ridiculous incomes. Maybe all pollies should take a pay cut and feed that back into the budget. That would genuinely surprise and impress me. (I did hear there was a pay freeze last year, but they could do more!)

I think what they really need is some more mustachians running the budget.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2015, 02:14:45 PM »
+1, but we were asked what would actually be in the budget, rather than what we would like to see. Reintroduction of carbon tax (which was obviously working), revamp of the taxation system to something that will work better in the future, removal of negative gearing and loosening of land laws so that houses become cheaper.

Sparkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Location: Melbourne
    • Stealthsprinter
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2015, 06:30:26 PM »
I think as a vast generalisation, having an interest in western world politics is becoming more and more pointless.  The notion that my vote counts, or that politicians are working for me and my (ie the country's) interests is long gone for me.

People will generally vote for which ever party gives them more.  Democracies generally unwind historically when the people realise they can vote for their own largesse. Government funding doesn't really exist. It is someone else's money, being redistributed. The cut the govt takes should be minimal, and that includes funding an overweight public sector. I expect taxes to be used wisely, and end up where it's supposed to, not wasted on superfluous stuff / bureaucracies

Traditionally 'right sided' political parties have realised they need to move to the left to have any chance of winning. The whole caboodle moves left, which results in increased govt spending, which leads to higher taxes, or deficits. It's happened the world over. The new 'centre' is what was once left sided politics.

I just feel that getting wound up over politics nowadays is a bit pointless. I'd rather work, pay what I have to in taxes, and make my political interest local.  Help out neighbours, live a clean life, minimise my impact etc.  Everything else is just noise.




LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2015, 04:13:36 AM »
lol @ 'overweight public sector' and 'the center is where the left used to be'.

*refers another kid to a poorly funded and overworked DHS facing more budget cuts*

LonerMatt's suggestion for the budget:
1. Mining tax
2. Carbon tax
3. End negative gearing
4. End superannuation concessions
5. Implement Gonski
6. Re-introduce the marine parks that cover 30% of Australia's sea
7. Invest in skilling areas in economic decline to produce green energy (Sheppardon, Mildura, Warrnambool, etc)
8. Allocate generous funding to research
9. Allocate generous funding to mental health professions, so that effective interventions exist before people's lives become irreversibly damaged
10. Allocate incredibly generous funding to public transport projects in and between states/territories - cut funding to road projects drastically over the next 15-20 years

LonerMatt's suggestions for Australia:
1. Welcome the boats
2. Stop using 'tough' as a synonym for 'good' and 'soft' as a synonym for 'bad'
3. Abetz is fired for being a slimey motherfucker who'd sell out to Pol Pot if it got him power
4. Anyone who thinks shark culling is a good idea is no longer allowed to vote, run for office, etc
5. Promote Penny Wong, Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon
6. Stop being cunts
7. Be decent human beings with integrity, rather than tepid fuck wits


Pie in the sky, but w/e.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2015, 04:27:03 AM »
Considering that I remember the days of Malcolm and Gough, I think the Liberals are where the DLP used to be, and Labor is where the Liberals used to be - so everything has moved RIGHT - sometimes extremely right (the DLP were the extremists to the right)

pancakes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2015, 04:42:47 AM »
My take on the budget at the moment is that something has to be done to discourage people (and businesses) from attempting to evade taxes. Tax reform to close legal means of avoiding tax (e.g. negative gearing) would be a start but I also think the whole national attitude towards taxation needs to change. I know amongst my friends the one financial achievement that isn't taboo to brag about is the size of your tax return and the loop holes you exploited to get it.

My views on tax are somewhat unpopular but I do believe that paying tax in Australia is a privilege. We get a lot for our taxes and I don't mind paying mine at all.


In my imaginary world the polls turn further against the current government and rather than desperately attempting to win voters over with populist legislation, they decide to take one for the country and introduce unpopular but necessary tax reform. I doubt it will happen.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 07:31:41 AM by pancakes »

firewalker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2015, 05:53:19 AM »
I know little about Australia, but it sounds like the place is in ruff shape.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2015, 04:27:06 PM »
I know little about Australia, but it sounds like the place is in ruff shape.
Not really - we are currently going through a very mild rough patch - but we didn't have much of a rough patch in 2008, and the current government has been saying we are in a very rough patch - so brought in a draconian budget that taxed the poor (and people started to believe them so we got into a mild rough patch as a result - but also because mineral prices are down). Now they are saying they have turned us around even though most of their measures were cancelled by the senate, and they are going to do another budget.

Taswegian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2015, 05:35:54 PM »
Thanks for putting the forum up Deborah :)
I'm from Tas, and i waver between 'minority government means that there is more communication nad negotiation = good' and 'just put that crap aside and get something done!' I am guessing Moustachians are likely to be a bit left (or green) so we're probably all on a similar end of the political spectrum. .. FWIW I'd love to see Messrs Abbot, Hockey, Shorten, Palmer (giggle!) et al start putting their electorates in front of their careers and/or their parties and implementing some real changes that make for a better society, rather than 'wah wah fix the budget/stop the boats/blow a wad over submarines & guns & jet fighters etc etc'
As it is, Andrew Wilkie held the balance of power and seems to have achieved zip, Jacquie Lambie is somehow popular, and climate change is apparently arguable..? Again, just put that crap aside and get something done...
Just my 2c :)

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2015, 06:47:50 PM »
But marty998 put this up! I think we are all over the spectrum - and that is good!

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2015, 07:47:07 PM »
hmm lots to work with here

lol @ 'overweight public sector' and 'the center is where the left used to be'.

*refers another kid to a poorly funded and overworked DHS facing more budget cuts*

LonerMatt's suggestion for the budget:
1. Mining tax yep, though 2008 was the time to do it when IO price was US$180 a tonne
2. Carbon tax yep...it was actually working lol with emissions down about 3%. The CT impact on my electricity bill was about $3 per bill
3. End negative gearing not quite....suggest quarantine losses and carry them forward against future income from the same source i.e. passive income losses carried forward against future passive income gains
4. End superannuation concessions keep the contribution concessions, but reinstate tax on pension earnings.
5. Implement Gonski nup. Target assistance to schools that actually need it, but the answer is not simply more money for everyone
6. Re-introduce the marine parks that cover 30% of Australia's sea Nudge the economy to more productive uses...tourism/whale watching etc instead of recreational fishing
7. Invest in skilling areas in economic decline to produce green energy (Sheppardon, Mildura, Warrnambool, etc) for gawds sake invest in solar, stop throwing moeny at Gina and Clive
8. Allocate generous funding to research reinstate funding for the CSIRO
9. Allocate generous funding to mental health professions, so that effective interventions exist before people's lives become irreversibly damaged drug and alcohol abuse prevention - Binge drinking and Crystal Meth addiction are laying waste to many communities
10. Allocate incredibly generous funding to public transport projects in and between states/territories - cut funding to road projects drastically over the next 15-20 years god our politicians are so stupid. The idiots built Sydney's M5 as 2 lanes each way. Now expanding it to 3 lanes each way. In 15 years time it'll be expanded again to 4 lanes each way. There's no forward planning anymore. Imagine if the Harbour Bridge was built 2 lanes at a time!

LonerMatt's suggestions for Australia:
1. Welcome the boats I disagree with you there. It doesn't solve the initial problem. The rest of the world needs to be fixed, otherwise, lets be honest, there's an inexhaustible supply of people wanting to come here, and Australia can't take them because among many reasons, we have no water, as well as no planning to absorb a massive increase in the population.
2. Stop using 'tough' as a synonym for 'good' and 'soft' as a synonym for 'bad' debt/deficit bad, surplus good?
3. Abetz is fired for being a slimey motherfucker who'd sell out to Pol Pot if it got him power Add to that Pyne, Bernardi, Bronwyn Bishop, and on the Labor side, anyone who was/is a Union hack.
4. Anyone who thinks shark culling is a good idea is no longer allowed to vote, run for office, etc
5. Promote Penny Wong, Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon ah I can see the flavour of your politic lol. Andrew Leigh is a good one on the Labor side. Kelly O'Dwyer is a good one on the Liberal side.
6. Stop being cunts hehe
7. Be decent human beings with integrity, rather than tepid fuck wits perfect world is not one we inhabit lol


Pie in the sky, but w/e.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 07:49:46 PM by marty998 »

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2015, 08:14:33 PM »
Obviously arranging appropriate care for the few thousand that end up here won't change the fact that certain parts of the world are awful - however, a recklessly inhuman and ridiculously expensive 'solution' that's pursued at the moment is obviously broken. I think changing our laws and processes so that they are appropriate would be a move towards compassion, and oud not necessarily see a change in numbers of people arriving here.

Gonski was suggested only because it's a model that already exists - personally I'm sick of politicians commissioning studies and 'looking into it' as promises towards action and progress. Such a circular wank.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2015, 08:37:16 PM »
As someone who was proud of our response to the Vietnamese boat people, I also believe that this policy is unworthy of us. It also doesn't make much difference as far as our immigration intake - the last figures I saw had boat people as less than 5% of our actual intake - so I cannot understand anyone saying that it increases our population significantly.

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2015, 04:38:17 AM »
As someone who was proud of our response to the Vietnamese boat people, I also believe that this policy is unworthy of us. It also doesn't make much difference as far as our immigration intake - the last figures I saw had boat people as less than 5% of our actual intake - so I cannot understand anyone saying that it increases our population significantly.
I always wondered why they couldn't put some of the skilled asylum seekers into the skilled migration list at least... There would be a fair bit of talent just sitting there in detention centres... But yeah, I don't think their policies work, and I can see there being an equivalent to the 'Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse' or the one about the children who came over from the UK in the 60's down the track... And compensation calls from that...

I mostly agree agree with LonerMatts comments.  Superannuation tax concessions you could even just put everyone getting a 15% discount and the fairness of it would be somewhat fixed.  In regards to marty998's comments on point 9 with the mental health spending, what you want to do here is to have treatment centres that do both the mental health and the addiction treatment at the same time, my understanding is that most of hte treatment centres do one but not the other (I have heard there is/was a place in NSW that cost 500k to treat, did both, and had a low recidivism issue so longer term it cost less).  My understanding with Ice is that there are a similar number of people using it as there has been previously, however it is purer, and it is in the rural communities where there are less treatment option.  You also want to put a fair bit into preventative medicine, for example more medicare funded psyciatric appointments so it costs less to treat rather than needing as much crises care (I realise there are a number of issues here...).

Personally I'm sick of the Coalition blaming Labor for everything.  There is a deficit issue (I think adjusting/removing superannuation tax concessions would deal with most of this), there however is not a debt issue at this point.  The Coalition have also made the deficit worse over their term with the removal of income sources.  From my point of view the deficit issues come from a combination of both Labor and Coalition policies over the last 15 years or so.  They can't get some of their previous budget measures through because a) the policies suck (e.g. the higher education fee deregulation will make the budget worse because people will have higher hecs debts) and b) they suck at negotiating, there are what 6 cross benchers in the senate, they don't need Labor's support...

I don't think they will deal with bracket creep yet, they can't afford it...

GST they may adjust distribution, but adjustments to what its on require the states to agree, I do not see this happening at this point in time.

In regards to Taxation, my dad is of the opinion that taxes should be on all the throughput of money that is received if that makes sense? So its not based on profit, but throughput.  The throughput tax would be at  a lower threshold than it is currently, but there are no deductions at all for it.  For example you have a 10% throughput tax, you have an item that cost $150, you get taxed 10% of the $150.  You don't get taxed the $150 - say $100 materials costs.  You don't have depretiation deductions, or any deductions at all.  There is a flaw with this in overseas transactions though...

For another tangent personally I don't mind minority governments, it tends to mean that the more sensible policy gets through (assuming you actually have negotiating skills, like Gillard did, but Abbott doesn't).  Admittedly you can't guarantee particular outcomes.  I'm perfectly happy with the Lower House/Senate position at the moment, I think the senate is doing what it is meant to do.  I dislike the current government and really wish that the PM and a number of ministers were no longer in their positions...

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2015, 05:25:55 AM »
As someone who was proud of our response to the Vietnamese boat people, I also believe that this policy is unworthy of us. It also doesn't make much difference as far as our immigration intake - the last figures I saw had boat people as less than 5% of our actual intake - so I cannot understand anyone saying that it increases our population significantly.

The difference was that there seems to have been a somewhat orderly program of resettlement from Vietnam after the war there. I wasn't around the time, but I'm only going off the link below

See the numbers as reported by the Parliament House library archives. Nary a blip back in those days. Quite clearly we can see exactly what happened in 2001 (Tampa) and 2009 (Rudd's compassion). The numbers were getting out of control, and at the end of it, were making up a significant proportion of the migrant intake* (about 10-15%). For those who do advocate an open borders approach, how many would you take? 100,000 a year? 1 million a year? Where would they go? In Sydney? Where there is already a shortage of housing, lack of infrastructure and lack of community services to deal with the influx? Or any other parts of the country, which is even less equipped in those regards... The processing costs were blowing out by billions (and yes we had to process them, Afghans turning up without documents and who's to know they weren't Taliban).

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/BoatArrivals

Not normally one to agree with the Tories but hey, the boats have stopped coming, there are no more children entering detention, and the ones who are in there are progressively being taken out, and most importantly people have stopped dying at sea.

You can question the methods, but what would you do differently to get the same results? I can't come with anything better that would be as effective and for that, I give the current government credit for what they've done (and may the lord strike me down for praising the Libs)

* For what it's worth, I'm one who believes the migrant intake needs to be scaled back. Simplistic I know, but it's no use bringing in hundreds of thousands of people when kids here today can't get jobs and youth unemployment is so high. There was a time when the economy needed a significant increase in migrants, but that time has passed for now. It may well come around again in future, and when it does we can open the tap again.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2015, 05:41:02 AM »
I hate ranting about the boat people issue, sorry. Makes me feel ill most times.

ACOSS suggested lowering the pension assets test limit to 795,000 for a couple.

Wholeheartedly agree with the proposal. Shorten and Jenny Macklin are idiots for opposing it. Macklin came out and labelled it a thought bubble of all things!

Labor fast sailing along the river and over the cliff to irrelevancy on this one. Can't really do any worse than excluding yourself from the debate and then watching the world move on as decisions are made without you.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2015, 05:50:54 AM »
There was no orderly resettlement. Or at least not any more or less than has happened since we got the masses at the end of WW2 - when our POW camps were changed to immigration centres.

Youth unemployment is low here compared to other countries, and it is lower than it was when I left school (I agree it is too high). Whenever I visit inland Australia I see how much the population has decreased, and how difficult it is to get people to stay. In Broken Hill, the two psychiatrists were FIFO from New Zealand! Everywhere you look there are fewer people - in towns, homesteads are now amalgamating and are just a nuclear family rather than the extra stockmen... there used to be. We are one of the most urbanised countries on the planet, and while Sydney is growing, inland isn't. The very fact the Dubbo is considered Western NSW shows just how few people there are over the Great Dividing Range. We need policies and infrastructure to allow this to be reversed - I hoped that the NBN would help, but it has been watered down. People should be able to work from anywhere (including regional and remote Australia), and have access to a reasonable level of services. The fact that WA wants to close all these Aboriginal communities shows that we are reducing services in regional and remote Australia.

I really agree about the pension assets test.

I have read the article - very interesting! But it compares boat people numbers with our humanitarian refugee intake, rather than our total migrant intake. However, looking at the immigration department's figures, you are right about the percentage.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 06:12:09 AM by deborah »

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2015, 05:47:38 PM »
The difference was that there seems to have been a somewhat orderly program of resettlement from Vietnam after the war there. I wasn't around the time, but I'm only going off the link below

See the numbers as reported by the Parliament House library archives. Nary a blip back in those days. Quite clearly we can see exactly what happened in 2001 (Tampa) and 2009 (Rudd's compassion). The numbers were getting out of control, and at the end of it, were making up a significant proportion of the migrant intake* (about 10-15%). For those who do advocate an open borders approach, how many would you take? 100,000 a year? 1 million a year? Where would they go? In Sydney? Where there is already a shortage of housing, lack of infrastructure and lack of community services to deal with the influx? Or any other parts of the country, which is even less equipped in those regards... The processing costs were blowing out by billions (and yes we had to process them, Afghans turning up without documents and who's to know they weren't Taliban).

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/BoatArrivals

Not normally one to agree with the Tories but hey, the boats have stopped coming, there are no more children entering detention, and the ones who are in there are progressively being taken out, and most importantly people have stopped dying at sea.

You can question the methods, but what would you do differently to get the same results? I can't come with anything better that would be as effective and for that, I give the current government credit for what they've done (and may the lord strike me down for praising the Libs)

* For what it's worth, I'm one who believes the migrant intake needs to be scaled back. Simplistic I know, but it's no use bringing in hundreds of thousands of people when kids here today can't get jobs and youth unemployment is so high. There was a time when the economy needed a significant increase in migrants, but that time has passed for now. It may well come around again in future, and when it does we can open the tap again.

Marty - I think you're missing the most important part of this issue: Australia's policies do not affect the number of asylum seekers trying to reach our shores. It can't. The reasons people flee and leave have nothing to do with x-policy, or y-politician and all to do with 'I can't live here'. Australia really only has to appear to be better to live in than Afghanistan, a refugee camp, Somalia, illegally in Malaysia, etc for people to try and make it here.

For people who get here via boat there's no reason NOT to welcome them. They represent a tiny fraction of new Australians each year (<1% usually, sometimes between 1-2%). Sure, there have been exceptions to this - but this is largely due to things Australia contributed to (War on Terror, yeah, we'll fuck up your home, but don't think we'll accept you've got a legitimate reason to leave!), or was incredibly aware of (Sri Lankan civil war).

Compared to people who overstay their student visas, immigrants from NZ/UK and other legal immigrants, asylum seekers really are NOT worth spending umpteen billions punishing by putting them in a detention center (NZ immigrants aren't counted in most statistics, as they do not have to apply for a visa, etc). Simply due to geography people are always going to struggle to come here 'illegally' - we'll never face a faceless and endless mass of people unless Indonesia is swallowed by the sea (though I guess when things turn to shit in Polynesia and Melanesia we'll either have a choice to help or a choice to get 'tough').

Furthermore - where would I put them? In rural areas where there's a modicum of unskilled labour - areas like Mildura, Albury/Wodonga, Shepparton have done well with the Asylum Seeker re-settlement scheme - families are able to participate in society, even with limited English, and become a visible and connected part of the community.

You're conflating a whole set of issues here (numbers, population in major cities, processing, etc). Honestly, if you can't admit that the current way that Australia handles asylum seekers is:
A) Reprehensibly inhumane
B) Grossly inefficient
C) Irresponsibly costly

Then we simply can't talk about it - there are no positives to the Coalition's current policies (and there have been starkly very few positives since 9/11). The positives you list are either impossible to know (deaths at sea) or just bizarre (yeah, it is good fewer kids are in detention but that's like saying it's great that Pol Pot was only in Cambodia - pretty far fetched silver lining, IMO).

I know that there are multiple ways of treating people more humanely, more efficiently and with less cost - and these aren't arcane or illogical, but I think we should be aiming for DIFFERENT results, not the same ones.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2015, 06:20:46 PM »
I can see and accept your points of view, except for the big bold one. Five years ago I would have agreed with your message, but now I'm unable to accept that the change in policy by the Rudd-Gillard government had no impact. It did, and it will take quite a bit to convince me otherwise.

Australia's policies do not affect the number of asylum seekers trying to reach our shores. It can't. The reasons people flee and leave have nothing to do with x-policy, or y-politician and all to do with 'I can't live here'. Australia really only has to appear to be better to live in than Afghanistan, a refugee camp, Somalia, illegally in Malaysia, etc for people to try and make it here.

And Labor's policy was the one that was threatening to become prohibitively expensive. Budget papers detail the scale of it quite clearly.

By cutting down the amount spent on mandatory detention, it allows the current Government to increase its spend on the rest of the humanitarian program, including resettlement of refugees from other parts of the world in need.

You're entitled to see things your way, and I'm not unsympathetic towards it. But I think I've said this before, just because I lean left, doesn't necessarily mean I take that particular stance all the time.

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2015, 06:40:36 PM »
Most of your post is series of odd red herrings.

It's well documented, in multiple eras and in multiple countries, that internally debated and chosen policy is not only largely unknown to asylum seekers, but simply does not affect push factors which are the events that largely determine if someones seeks asylum.


Taswegian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2015, 09:45:06 PM »
But marty998 put this up! I think we are all over the spectrum - and that is good!

Eek! One of my first posts and i get it all wrong. Sorry Deborah (and Marty)

DrowsyBee

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: Canberra, Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2015, 05:23:18 AM »
General Politics: Anyone else think that we currently have an entire generation full of politicians the country is just trying to get rid of? I grew up with Howard being PM from the time I started noticing politics, then we had 6 years of Abbott, Gillard and Rudd. Since Howard left and public opinion turned on Rudd....and then Gillard and then Abbott...it just seems like everyone is waiting until they're all thrown out of office so that we can get back to actual governing.

All of which makes me wonder what on earth the Labor party was thinking by bringing in Bill Shorten as leader. Surely they will ditch him for Burke or Plibersek before the next election?

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2015, 05:57:28 AM »
There are several politicians I have been impressed by, in the general appalling morass -  Julie Bishop, Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull as well as a few from the other side, but we have been seeing dregs - and I am not sure that people are being impressive, or that the general standard is so abysmal that these people stand out as somewhat better.

We no longer have people who are prepared to put their neck out and be elected for it. I have been thinking about the days of Whitlam and Fraser. Whitlam was probably the last (maybe the only) prime minister to be elected on a platform of radical change. And he said what he would do in the first 90 days, and he did it (out of Vietnam, free universities, changing the voting age, absolutely unheard of changes). He was a cult figure (a friend named his dog Gough), and because Labor had so many years in opposition and he was so ideological (and he probably got a swollen head), he made a huge mess. Then Kerr and Fraser kicked him out - and Fraser was never forgiven (despite winning the election - he won that because of the mess) - even though he took Whitlam's changes and ran with them.

Abbott wants radical change (that was what the first budget was about in my opinion, and all his captain's picks), but he never was elected for change - in fact quite the opposite.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2015, 06:34:48 AM »
General Politics: Anyone else think that we currently have an entire generation full of politicians the country is just trying to get rid of? I grew up with Howard being PM from the time I started noticing politics, then we had 6 years of Abbott, Gillard and Rudd. Since Howard left and public opinion turned on Rudd....and then Gillard and then Abbott...it just seems like everyone is waiting until they're all thrown out of office so that we can get back to actual governing.

All of which makes me wonder what on earth the Labor party was thinking by bringing in Bill Shorten as leader. Surely they will ditch him for Burke or Plibersek before the next election?

Yep agree with the sentiments. This stems from the lack of general public membership within each of the major parties. Increasingly the only voices heard within parties are the ones with entrenched power bases (such as the CFMEU, the AWU and other unions in Labor, and the ACCI, BCA, IPA and other "think tanks" and lobby groups aligned with the Liberal party).

We therefore end up with the likes of of the current crop, who only really know how to advance the interests of their own base and not the country.

The circle will turn one day, it just takes one to rise above. Soon enough it will happen.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2015, 06:35:37 AM »
But marty998 put this up! I think we are all over the spectrum - and that is good!

Eek! One of my first posts and i get it all wrong. Sorry Deborah (and Marty)

I start a lot of threads like this, but she tends to keep them going :)

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2015, 07:02:29 PM »
General Politics: Anyone else think that we currently have an entire generation full of politicians the country is just trying to get rid of? I grew up with Howard being PM from the time I started noticing politics, then we had 6 years of Abbott, Gillard and Rudd. Since Howard left and public opinion turned on Rudd....and then Gillard and then Abbott...it just seems like everyone is waiting until they're all thrown out of office so that we can get back to actual governing.

All of which makes me wonder what on earth the Labor party was thinking by bringing in Bill Shorten as leader. Surely they will ditch him for Burke or Plibersek before the next election?
The Labor party had a 50 general membership/50 caucus vote.  Albanese won the general membership vote, Shorten won the Caucus vote.  Shorten is more powerful union wise than Albanese which is why the majority of the Caucus voted for him.  That being said my opinion of Shorten is that he is an ambitious back stabber, and he is fairly bland.  it could be that the Labor party wanted someone to settle the dust with and will choose someone else prior to the next election.
Abbott has never been liked, no matter what he thinks himself, he was not voted in, Labor was voted out.  Aside from his own proclivity towards gaffes, I don't think he chose well with his ministers, he also sucks on the negotiation front.  Personally my preferred outcome for the last election was for both Rudd and Abbott to be voted out of their seats.
Rudd, I didn't think did too bad a job, however he wasn't enough of a team player and he was a micro-manager (which really isn't good in a prime minister).  His thought bubbles were also problematic, as we saw prior to the last election.
Gillard I quite liked, she somewhat had a plan and was implementing it over time, she was a decent negotiator and while I didn't like all of the policies that her government implemented I could understand what she was trying to do.  She never recovered from how she became Prime Minister and Abbott also ran an effective campaign against her backed by the newspapers, that and she wasn't an effective enough communicator.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15967
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2015, 07:28:24 PM »
I have been quite puzzled by Gillard. She was an extremely good negotiator - with a minority government, she managed to get things agreed and passed that had stymied several previous governments. She also managed to negotiate a minority government (although with Abbott as the opposition negotiator, looking back, it was somewhat inevitable).

I would have thought that communication would come easy, with those types of negotiation skills. Yet there were huge problems. Mum says they didn't give her a chance because she was a woman - but we have had women premiers who have been given a chance.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9294
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2015, 07:57:36 PM »
I think, from a voter point of view, she just was't very personable. She did try to improve, but she always seemed a bit frozen, and that she was using carefully chosen "lawyer speak". All the to-ing and fro-ing with Rudd v Gillard did not help…her somewhat cold personality seemed to easily morph into deceptive and calculating, qualities that I think would not endear her to the Aussie public.

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2015, 09:15:31 PM »
I would have thought that communication would come easy, with those types of negotiation skills. Yet there were huge problems. Mum says they didn't give her a chance because she was a woman - but we have had women premiers who have been given a chance.
I would say different aspects of communication are required at different times.  She did not have the Charisma that for example Rudd had.  In regards to the not being given a chance, it was probably a number of factors 1) How she got to be PM, 2) She was female 3) Abbott, and 4) Aspects of the media had decided they want to go back to the LNP.

Abbott rabbited on about the Carbon tax as a broken promise, personally I understood why she broke that promise (I think Abbott would have done the same if it had given him power), he also broke more promises in his first year and yet we don't see as much of a sustained beat up about it in the media (although he does seem to frequently add more gaffes to the fire)...  I don't think that Abbott would have handled a minority government as well as she did (or at all for that matter).

This_Is_My_Username

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Location: Australia, Mate.
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2015, 10:25:24 PM »
As someone who was proud of our response to the Vietnamese boat people, I also believe that this policy is unworthy of us. It also doesn't make much difference as far as our immigration intake - the last figures I saw had boat people as less than 5% of our actual intake - so I cannot understand anyone saying that it increases our population significantly.

I agree fully.  Sea arrivals are 2.5% of our annual immigration intake.  Air arrivals are 97.5%

Stop The Planes(tm)

jk : )

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2015, 04:33:55 AM »
Some policy announcements today...

Labor playing silly buggers with superannuation tax again. They should just have proposed to put the 15% back on everyone in pension phase and be done with it. Instead they've proposed this half baked idea of only on earnings above $75,000 in any given year. Will be a nightmare to implement.

For example - if you have 3 super funds - 1 SMSF and 1 retail fund and 1 industry fund, and the combined earnings go above $75k, which one pays the tax?

Libs announced something or other with medicare...appears they are going to look at all 1,253,941* items on the rebates schedule to see whether any of them could be made more efficient. Health Minister has been asked to find $3billion in savings over the next 4 years. We'll see how that goes on budget night I suppose...

* May be exaggerated for dramatic effect

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2015, 05:15:13 AM »
I don't necessarily think that looking at what is funded by medicare and the effectiveness is a bad idea.  There are savings to be made in health, whether this is the area I'm not sure.  Someone more involved within the health system would no doubt be able to tell you.  I do think that the review will take a long time though...
If we look at something like the NHS (UK health system), they have strict requirements as to what is funded and what isn't, this keeps costs down for them.  New drugs have a cost-benefit analysis applied to them as to whether they are funded by the NHS (for example, if a cancer drug has minimal extra benefit, and has a vastly higher cost, then that won't be funded).
I don't understand why not just tax at standard rates in pension phase for superannuation... i.e. tax whatever you withdraw, you are required to take out a certain percentage of it once you reach a certain age anyway... Also, I would ask why 75000, the median household income is what 57k or so (or it was a couple of years ago), it should be at least at the median income rather than the average wage which as we all know is inflated due to high income earners...

MMMaybe

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2015, 05:36:36 AM »
I'm another one who would like Aus to continue stopping the boats. Firstly as we have seen this week in Europe, vulnerable people are being fleeced by people smugglers. I am not keen though on what I am hearing about offshore processing centres so I am not sure what the best solution is in that regard.

Secondly, we need to have an orderly immigration system. That means enforcing the rules for everyone, including overstayers.

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers but having grown up in Africa, I know there is no end to human misery and desperation. There are plenty of other people who have been waiting patiently for years to be re-settled and who could not afford to pay traffickers to ship them halfway around the world.

I think the issue is (probably controversial) the structuring of immigration programs in the developed world. Either you are have in-demand skills, are sponsored by family or you get a humanitarian visa. There is not a category for economic migrants who are willing to work and who do not fit into the above categories neatly. What if you wanted a new life but wouldn't get accepted? I would be interested to know if this has caused a blurring of the lines between asylum and migration in this instance? I do wonder if there is an element of disguised economic migration but maybe that is more pertinent in the European example.

I have not been following the Budget too carefully (am not living in Aus at present) but I am hoping they will strike down the changes to HECS, implement stronger pensions asset tests and do something to calm the housing mania-change negative gearing? I am worried that Aus is becoming a less socially mobile place.

On my wishlist would be the end to the Big Australia policy. Its not sustainable and having lived in a few severely overcrowded Asian cities, I do appreciate a bit of elbow room nowdays!

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2015, 05:47:30 AM »
I don't necessarily think that looking at what is funded by medicare and the effectiveness is a bad idea.  There are savings to be made in health, whether this is the area I'm not sure.  Someone more involved within the health system would no doubt be able to tell you.  I do think that the review will take a long time though...
If we look at something like the NHS (UK health system), they have strict requirements as to what is funded and what isn't, this keeps costs down for them.  New drugs have a cost-benefit analysis applied to them as to whether they are funded by the NHS (for example, if a cancer drug has minimal extra benefit, and has a vastly higher cost, then that won't be funded).
I don't understand why not just tax at standard rates in pension phase for superannuation... i.e. tax whatever you withdraw, you are required to take out a certain percentage of it once you reach a certain age anyway... Also, I would ask why 75000, the median household income is what 57k or so (or it was a couple of years ago), it should be at least at the median income rather than the average wage which as we all know is inflated due to high income earners...

Yes agree good idea to look into what medicare but this is the sort of thing that should be done all the time, not just as a special one-off when in desperate need of savings.

Part of being a good government is treating taxpayer dollars with a modicum of respect... look for savings in good times and in bad.

Keen to see what the government is going to do... deficits are starting to pile up quite dramatically. In years gone by debt and deficit could simply have been wished away via inflation. With the CPI as (apparently) low as it is that is no longer a path a Government in need can take.

Aussiegirl

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2015, 05:18:27 PM »
I read the proposed super changes yesterday with interest.  With the continual tinkering you can see why young people in particular are not interested in super.  The young guys at my work just say "why bother, the government will steal it from you anyhow".

We're still over 20 years away from being able to collect, so the assumptions we make on our super for our FI plan are:

1.  You will not be able to access super until you're 70
2.  There will no lump sum withdrawals
3.  All super balances will be paid in a pension, via an annuity based product for the mass market or self made annuity products for SMSF
4.  All payments will be taxed at your marginal rate

All that said, this year will be our last one of additional contributions to super, then it's jus time to let it compound, compound, compound.....



This_Is_My_Username

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Location: Australia, Mate.
.
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2015, 06:11:16 AM »
on deficit / debt , I recently realised that a govt can sustain a mild deficit every year forever.   That is, it can spend more that it earns, every year, forever.
 
(1) imagine the federal budget is perfectly balanced, and includes a $100m interest expesnse. 

(2) next year, the interest will also be $100m, but the burden of paying $100m is easier to carry.  because econimic growth makes everything go up, but the $100m interest expense stays the same.

(3) so the got can acquire some extra debt, and pay $102m in interest, and the burden remains the same.

:

That said, the expected budget outcome of $350b income and $400b spending is bad for Australia in the medium term.

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australia - Budget, Policy and General Politics
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2015, 07:51:10 AM »
I think I remember reading/hearing somewhere that the US has never had a surplus for its budget in its history.

If we want to be technical about it, the federal government can effectively wipe away its debt if it does so choose, it just wouldn't be particularly wise to do so.

I see the deficit as being more of an issue than the debt.  By all accounts the current debt for the Australian Federal Government is minimal and easily servicable.  The deficit is however a different issue, but there are a few levers that they could press and the deficit would no longer be an issue at the current point in time, they just choose not to deal with them (one of the levers has to do with super tax concessions).

Edit: It should also be noted that going between deficits and surpluses is a good thing, you want surpluses in the good times, and deficits in the bad.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 07:52:43 AM by agent_clone »