Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Best place to build your
property career in Canberra

One flag, one day and one country…

By Emily Morris 21 January 2015 57

Australia day stock

I must confess I hadn’t given a great deal of thought to the Australian flag until I returned to these shores in 2012. I found it very easy when out of Australia to have limited thought about our culture and heritage, and subsequent historical unease.

In London, I celebrated Australia Day like many other Aussies, in an Australian-themed pub drinking Fosters and listening to Men at Work and Cold Chisel (I hated Cold Chisel before leaving).

On return, I was prompted to think more often and more deeply about our national identity and about where I want to fit within that. In all honesty I was more proudly Australian abroad than when my feet were planted on local soil.

Living here, I am aware of the conflict. I am aware of the wrongs within our history. Were they my personal wrongs? No. Do I feel like I could do more to stand up for what I believe is right? Yes.

Like so many other countries, I believe our flag is currently being held hostage by parts of our society I do not wish to associate with; many who believe that to be proudly Australian is to shun other cultures, that being Australian involves being from a white, English-speaking background.

When I see the merchandise everywhere in the shops at the moment – everything from eskies to chip boxes brandished in the Australian flag – I can’t help but flinch slightly. We celebrate a day as Australia Day, which must cause deep-seated dislike and distrust in our indigenous population. We fly our flag and celebrate being Australian on a day of enormous injustice to the people who were here first. For so many reasons I would love to see us celebrate being Australians (from whichever journey we may have trodden) on a different day, and my inner republican would love to see us celebrate with a different flag (one that includes the more relevant Aboriginal symbol instead of the increasingly irrelevant British one).

My English husband reminds me that the same thing has happened in many countries. The ‘far right’ often sabotage national symbols to promote their causes. He reminds me that it is not for me to shun our flag for this reason alone, but to rewrite my associations with it and appreciate its role in our own history.

This Australia Day, I hope to see many locals from the original people (as says my young daughter who can’t fully pronounce the word aboriginal) through to the strong mix of diverse cultures that we now have living in Canberra, celebrating how lucky we are to be here and what a beautiful city it is.

Maybe one day we can get the day right and include a rightful and respectful historical emblem on our flag indicative of our countries true roots, but until then I sincerely hope Canberra enjoys a celebration of tolerance.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
57 Responses to
One flag, one day and one country…
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
dungfungus 11:12 am 25 Jan 15

MERC600 said :

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Correction, ACT 2014-15 budget deficit is $770.5 million :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/act-budget-predicted-deficit-doubles-to-770-million/6042470?section=act

How can the highly skilled and highly paid trustees of the ACT Government superannuation fund continually allow the fund to lose money? The also fly in “experts” to advise on the exotic investments they have made.
The superannuation fund is going to end up like Rhodium Asset Solutions all because of the “we can do it better ourselves” mindset this government has.
If I were an ACT Government employee I would be reviewing my retirement plans as the superannuation entitlements I thought I would get may be greatly depleted if this situation is allowed to go on.

I might be wrong about this, but I recall reading a while back that the liability of ACT Public Servants superannuation was unfunded – but by some quirk of accounting, is not included in the Territory’s budget papers ?

Hundreds of millions is unfunded as I recall – but I’ll stand corrected on that.

The Commonwealth started the Future Fund for the liability of its employees.

Back in December our ACT Auditor-General Maxine Cooper pointed out we have $4.46 billion unfunded superannuation liability for public servants. Should this be taken into account when talking about how much we owe ? You would think so.

In past times, when money lenders used to scale balance sheets to establish true assets/liabilities, anything unfunded (like long service leave) was added in as a liability.
The ability of the applicant borrower to meet these commitments when they fell due was taken into consideration also.
I don’t think the ACT Government would have got past the loan interview desk with the problems they have.

dungfungus 5:57 pm 24 Jan 15

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Correction, ACT 2014-15 budget deficit is $770.5 million :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/act-budget-predicted-deficit-doubles-to-770-million/6042470?section=act

How can the highly skilled and highly paid trustees of the ACT Government superannuation fund continually allow the fund to lose money? The also fly in “experts” to advise on the exotic investments they have made.
The superannuation fund is going to end up like Rhodium Asset Solutions all because of the “we can do it better ourselves” mindset this government has.
If I were an ACT Government employee I would be reviewing my retirement plans as the superannuation entitlements I thought I would get may be greatly depleted if this situation is allowed to go on.

I might be wrong about this, but I recall reading a while back that the liability of ACT Public Servants superannuation was unfunded – but by some quirk of accounting, is not included in the Territory’s budget papers ?

Hundreds of millions is unfunded as I recall – but I’ll stand corrected on that.

The Commonwealth started the Future Fund for the liability of its employees.

The following extract from ACT Government 2011 budget papers should explain how it works (or doesn’t work):
“ACT Government employees are members of a number of different superannuation schemes. All liabilities incurred for new employees since 1 July 2005 are fully funded. A large proportion of the current employees who joined prior to 1 July 2005 (and almost all of the past employees) are members of defined benefit schemes.
Fully funding the defined benefit superannuation liability over time remains one of the key financial objectives of the Territory. The Territory does not operate a superannuation fund for employees. The Superannuation Provision Account (SPA) holds and invests superannuation assets, and makes payments to the Commonwealth administering agency ComSuper for emerging costs (employee superannuation benefit payments).
The global financial crisis, and in particular the performance of equity markets, had a significant negative impact on the value of superannuation investments over the 2008 09 financial year. As at 30 June 2009, the liability was 45 per cent funded, with investment assets of $1.8 billion and superannuation liabilities of $4 billion. However, during 2009 10 global investment markets have recovered strongly, with the value of investments estimated to grow to approximately $2.1 billion against the original budget estimate for the value of the portfolio of $2 billion.
The estimated superannuation liability at the end of June 2010 is approximately $4 billion, reflecting an unfunded liability of $1.9 billion. At June 2010, the funding of liabilities is expected to improve from 45 per cent to approximately 52 per cent. Over the forward estimates period, the ratio of funding to liabilities is projected to increase to 55 per cent by 30 June 2014.”

This contingent liability should be shown on the balance sheet. The unfunded liability has blown out by almost $3.00 billion dollars in 3 years.
I believe the government contributes 15% annually of employees gross wages to the funded scheme which is operated by First State Super. It’s the defined benefits schemes that are causing the grief.
Are some of you of starting to sit up and notice now?

dungfungus 5:42 pm 24 Jan 15

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

Borrowing is not sustainable if revenue doesn’t increase, however you need to look at the facts, not just political spin doctoring.
Spending has been at a constant of 23-25% of GDP for the last few decades. Revenue however has fluctuated from 21% to 29% of GDP. The real issue is we have is lost revenue.

I disagree. While revenue did drop, spending increased and that was the real problem. You can see that in this chart, courtesy of the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/chart-australian-government-spending-and-revenue/5436772

And as I mentioned in a previous post, the money spent on stimulus packages contributed little to keeping our economy alive during the GFC.

All “stimulus” spending does is bring to bring forward consumer demand from the future.
When the future arrives, the demand that would have been there has already been expended.
It’s akin to kicking the can down the road and there is a huge debt created.
There are times when individuals and economies have to bite the bullet and suffer the consequences of
financial excesses which are usually self-inflicted.
The world-wide campaign to print money and lower interest rates has been a total failure – all it is doing is destroying wealth of people who have chosen to live within their means.
What is the point in offering loans to potential borrowers if they don’t want to borrow money at any price?
The great depression was caused by over production and low consumer confidence. Eighty years on it is about to happen again.

MERC600 5:31 pm 24 Jan 15

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Correction, ACT 2014-15 budget deficit is $770.5 million :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/act-budget-predicted-deficit-doubles-to-770-million/6042470?section=act

How can the highly skilled and highly paid trustees of the ACT Government superannuation fund continually allow the fund to lose money? The also fly in “experts” to advise on the exotic investments they have made.
The superannuation fund is going to end up like Rhodium Asset Solutions all because of the “we can do it better ourselves” mindset this government has.
If I were an ACT Government employee I would be reviewing my retirement plans as the superannuation entitlements I thought I would get may be greatly depleted if this situation is allowed to go on.

I might be wrong about this, but I recall reading a while back that the liability of ACT Public Servants superannuation was unfunded – but by some quirk of accounting, is not included in the Territory’s budget papers ?

Hundreds of millions is unfunded as I recall – but I’ll stand corrected on that.

The Commonwealth started the Future Fund for the liability of its employees.

Back in December our ACT Auditor-General Maxine Cooper pointed out we have $4.46 billion unfunded superannuation liability for public servants. Should this be taken into account when talking about how much we owe ? You would think so.

rommeldog56 4:36 pm 24 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Correction, ACT 2014-15 budget deficit is $770.5 million :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/act-budget-predicted-deficit-doubles-to-770-million/6042470?section=act

How can the highly skilled and highly paid trustees of the ACT Government superannuation fund continually allow the fund to lose money? The also fly in “experts” to advise on the exotic investments they have made.
The superannuation fund is going to end up like Rhodium Asset Solutions all because of the “we can do it better ourselves” mindset this government has.
If I were an ACT Government employee I would be reviewing my retirement plans as the superannuation entitlements I thought I would get may be greatly depleted if this situation is allowed to go on.

I might be wrong about this, but I recall reading a while back that the liability of ACT Public Servants superannuation was unfunded – but by some quirk of accounting, is not included in the Territory’s budget papers ? Hundreds of millions is unfunded as I recall – but I’ll stand corrected on that.

The Commonwealth started the Future Fund for the liability of its employees.

Mysteryman 1:45 pm 24 Jan 15

watto23 said :

Borrowing is not sustainable if revenue doesn’t increase, however you need to look at the facts, not just political spin doctoring.
Spending has been at a constant of 23-25% of GDP for the last few decades. Revenue however has fluctuated from 21% to 29% of GDP. The real issue is we have is lost revenue.

I disagree. While revenue did drop, spending increased and that was the real problem. You can see that in this chart, courtesy of the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/chart-australian-government-spending-and-revenue/5436772

And as I mentioned in a previous post, the money spent on stimulus packages contributed little to keeping our economy alive during the GFC.

Mysteryman 1:25 pm 24 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

Some will argue that our debt is small compared to other economies

In my opinion, that’s a little bit like arguing that AIDS is better than cancer. The prognosis may differ, but in reality neither is very good and both are often terminal.

dungfungus 11:55 am 24 Jan 15

rommeldog56 said :

Correction, ACT 2014-15 budget deficit is $770.5 million :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/act-budget-predicted-deficit-doubles-to-770-million/6042470?section=act

How can the highly skilled and highly paid trustees of the ACT Government superannuation fund continually allow the fund to lose money? The also fly in “experts” to advise on the exotic investments they have made.
The superannuation fund is going to end up like Rhodium Asset Solutions all because of the “we can do it better ourselves” mindset this government has.
If I were an ACT Government employee I would be reviewing my retirement plans as the superannuation entitlements I thought I would get may be greatly depleted if this situation is allowed to go on.

dungfungus 11:45 am 24 Jan 15

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

Yes, they did. They were the ones who spent. You’re acting like a Labor government hasn’t done that before. It’s quite amusing. But by all means, give me details of this “economic reality” you seem to be privy to.

chewy14 said :

It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

See, here’s where you and all the other people still echoing Wayne Swan are wrong.

There are three main reasons that we came out the other side of the GFC better off than other developed countries. Firstly, our banks were not conducting the same questionable business practices as those in the US, UK, and Europe. They weren’t heavily invested off shore, and regulation prevented them from engaging in sub-prime predatory lending and other less-than-ethical investing so when the hit arrived in 2008, most of us lost no money from our savings and only a competitively small amount from our superannuation funds. The banks lost a minimal amount, and were in no danger of collapsing.

Secondly, and without question most significantly, is that China ramped up their building and infrastructure development in response to the GFC. The flow on effect was that Australian ore and other resources experienced an sharp increase in demand. Our GDP remained solid, and throughout 2009 China’s energy and mineral reliance on Australia grew massively, to the point where roughly 80% of our merchandise export was going straight to China. A huge increase on previous years. It made the Rudd government stimulus look like a drop in the ocean. We continued to experience favourable trading conditions that kept our economy kicking along strongly and prevented economic contraction.

Thirdly, we were in a very positive economic state in the lead up to the GFC. We had no debt. We had money in the bank. As a nation we were in the best possible financial position face the challenges of what might come.

Yes, the stimulus by the Rudd government also contributed. But its contribution was minimal compared to the other factors – particularly the resilience of our banks and the huge amount of business with China ramping up its stimulus and infrastructure building. The benefit of hindsight has allowed a number of economists to put the stimulus spending in perspective. It’s easy now to see that Rudd and Swan had much, much less to do with our performance during that time than their rhetoric has led you to believe.

That is a good analysis.
The big mystery is where did all the potential wealth go? Revenues were rising even though Swan claimed they weren’t so the problem can only be unbridled spending which now cannot be reined in.
I never take any notice of what economists say these days. Remember the economists who repeatedly said Australia’s economy was the envy of the world and Wayne Swan was the world’s best treasurer?
I believe Australia will never be able to repay the target debt of $700 billion and we will have difficulty in even servicing the debt when interest rates begin to rise.
Some will argue that our debt is small compared to other economies but those other economies have manufacturing industries and will be able to trade out their debt.
All that Australia now has are some big holes in the ground.

rommeldog56 9:42 am 24 Jan 15

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

Yes, they did. They were the ones who spent. You’re acting like a Labor government hasn’t done that before. It’s quite amusing. But by all means, give me details of this “economic reality” you seem to be privy to.

chewy14 said :

It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

See, here’s where you and all the other people still echoing Wayne Swan are wrong.

There are three main reasons that we came out the other side of the GFC better off than other developed countries. Firstly, our banks were not conducting the same questionable business practices as those in the US, UK, and Europe. They weren’t heavily invested off shore, and regulation prevented them from engaging in sub-prime predatory lending and other less-than-ethical investing so when the hit arrived in 2008, most of us lost no money from our savings and only a competitively small amount from our superannuation funds. The banks lost a minimal amount, and were in no danger of collapsing.

Secondly, and without question most significantly, is that China ramped up their building and infrastructure development in response to the GFC. The flow on effect was that Australian ore and other resources experienced an sharp increase in demand. Our GDP remained solid, and throughout 2009 China’s energy and mineral reliance on Australia grew massively, to the point where roughly 80% of our merchandise export was going straight to China. A huge increase on previous years. It made the Rudd government stimulus look like a drop in the ocean. We continued to experience favourable trading conditions that kept our economy kicking along strongly and prevented economic contraction.

Thirdly, we were in a very positive economic state in the lead up to the GFC. We had no debt. We had money in the bank. As a nation we were in the best possible financial position face the challenges of what might come.

Yes, the stimulus by the Rudd government also contributed. But its contribution was minimal compared to the other factors – particularly the resilience of our banks and the huge amount of business with China ramping up its stimulus and infrastructure building. The benefit of hindsight has allowed a number of economists to put the stimulus spending in perspective. It’s easy now to see that Rudd and Swan had much, much less to do with our performance during that time than their rhetoric has led you to believe.

If u want to talk about budgets and Gov’t spending, deficits, etc, the Labor/Greens ACT Gov’t has just announced that the projected budget deficit for 2014-15 has, not surprisingly, more than doubled to $772.5 million.

So, in context of the ACTs revenue base and given that the payments to the Light Rail contractor won’t start for a few years yet, thats certainly going to take some repayment – by Ratepayers I mean.

Mysteryman 4:15 pm 23 Jan 15

chewy14 said :

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

Yes, they did. They were the ones who spent. You’re acting like a Labor government hasn’t done that before. It’s quite amusing. But by all means, give me details of this “economic reality” you seem to be privy to.

chewy14 said :

It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

See, here’s where you and all the other people still echoing Wayne Swan are wrong.

There are three main reasons that we came out the other side of the GFC better off than other developed countries. Firstly, our banks were not conducting the same questionable business practices as those in the US, UK, and Europe. They weren’t heavily invested off shore, and regulation prevented them from engaging in sub-prime predatory lending and other less-than-ethical investing so when the hit arrived in 2008, most of us lost no money from our savings and only a competitively small amount from our superannuation funds. The banks lost a minimal amount, and were in no danger of collapsing.

Secondly, and without question most significantly, is that China ramped up their building and infrastructure development in response to the GFC. The flow on effect was that Australian ore and other resources experienced an sharp increase in demand. Our GDP remained solid, and throughout 2009 China’s energy and mineral reliance on Australia grew massively, to the point where roughly 80% of our merchandise export was going straight to China. A huge increase on previous years. It made the Rudd government stimulus look like a drop in the ocean. We continued to experience favourable trading conditions that kept our economy kicking along strongly and prevented economic contraction.

Thirdly, we were in a very positive economic state in the lead up to the GFC. We had no debt. We had money in the bank. As a nation we were in the best possible financial position face the challenges of what might come.

Yes, the stimulus by the Rudd government also contributed. But its contribution was minimal compared to the other factors – particularly the resilience of our banks and the huge amount of business with China ramping up its stimulus and infrastructure building. The benefit of hindsight has allowed a number of economists to put the stimulus spending in perspective. It’s easy now to see that Rudd and Swan had much, much less to do with our performance during that time than their rhetoric has led you to believe.

beardedclam 3:26 pm 23 Jan 15

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

When Labor gained office in 2007 there was about $30 billion in the bank.

Correct. However, based on the economic conditions of the previous 10 years there should have been $300 Billion.

Claiming the Liberals under Howard were good economic managers, is the same as claiming the bloke who wins $2 Million in the Lottery and only spends $1.8Million is a financial genius.

I mean C’mon, he’s still got $200K in the bank right?

Isnt this about a flag?????

chewy14 3:17 pm 23 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

When Labor gained office in 2007 there was about $30 billion in the bank.

Correct. However, based on the economic conditions of the previous 10 years there should have been $300 Billion.

Claiming the Liberals under Howard were good economic managers, is the same as claiming the bloke who wins $2 Million in the Lottery and only spends $1.8Million is a financial genius.

I mean C’mon, he’s still got $200K in the bank right?

chewy14 3:13 pm 23 Jan 15

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

Firstly,
Labor didn’t “create” the debt, it’s a result of 10-15 years of successive government policy and the GFC.
You could possibly blame Labor for some spending programs that were ideological rather than logical but the exact same thing is true of the current government.

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black. They’re all to busy trying to sledge each other, get elected/remain in power and waste our money on their ideological wet dream projects.

Labor didn’t create our debt? Really? So it just materialised out of thin air while they delivered successive budget surpluses?

We had no debt when the Howard government left. We actually had nearly a decade of falling debt ending in increasing surpluses. Labor was elected and brought with them poor policy decisions, inability to balance a budget sheet, and a knee-jerk spending reaction to the GFC began a cycle of deficit’s that led to our current position. The GFC was not the cause (it contributed, but nowhere near as much as Labor claimed) and had Labor been able to manage money we would have made it out the other side without the ballooning debt we currently have.

chewy14 said :

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black.

There is one that’s willing. Significant changes to a range of spending areas were proposed last May. They aren’t able, however, as the Green/Labor alliance is blocking everything in the Senate on principle. We won’t get the opportunity to see whether the policies work because they won’t see the light of day. Meanwhile, the debt gets worse and people can sit back and say “told you they couldn’t fix the budget”.

Labor and the Greens will have a lot to answer for if they win the next election. They created this growing financial mess, and now they are doing everything they can to prevent its cleanup.

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

It was a result of policies enacted during the later Howard years that increased recurrent spending and reduced revenue through tax cuts and extra concessions beyond what would be reasonable to balance the budget over the full economic cycle.

I don’t blame Howard for this all that much because the only other options available would be to engage on a large scale infrastructure program or institute a sovereign wealth fund to hold the windfall gains in revenue he received, which however logical would have been completely politically unpalatable.

When Labor got into power, they also couldn’t change these policies because of their “me too” attitude and because the electorate would have crucified them due to the massive entitlement mentality that had been cultivated for years. They also enacted some dubious policies of their own but these were only a small part of the problem. It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

As for the Liberals current efforts at budget control, I actually support a lot of what they’re trying to do. Policies like the GP copayment and University reforms have merit and should be worked through. But they too clearly aren’t interested in fixing the whole problem because otherwise they wouldn’t be focusing on only one half of it and completely ignoring (or in fact exacerbating) the revenue problem. There’s clear and obvious revenue measures and tax reforms that should be made but they haven’t even considered them, let alone started a real debate about what should happen.

It’s laughable to suggest that any of our major parties are solely to blame for the situation we find ourselves in.

dungfungus 3:05 pm 23 Jan 15

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

miz said :

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

I think both Labor and Liberal federal governments have made decisions that are ultimately not in the national interest. What particularly bothers me about the Abbott government is its continual focus on sending ‘price signals’ to your average PAYG citizen and seeking ‘spending savings’ (without any consequential thinking about what happens if people stop going to the GP or can’t afford uni). Instead they clearly should be focusing on making the tax revenue collection end fairer by closing up glaring corporate tax loopholes and other rorts, which would more than balance the budget and simply make things fairer. You know it makes sense!

“….there was money to counter the GFC…”
I assume you are referring to the $30 billion surplus the Howard government had accumulated.
This was “rainy day” money and it was soon spent by Labor to defend us against the GFC but sending out cheques for $900 to buy imported consumer goods.
You fail to mention the money that was then borrowed and indeed continues to be borrowed by the current government.
This borrowed money is needed to fund Medicare, pay public servants, welfare etc. We even have to borrow money to pay interest on the money already borrowed. That is not sustainable.
If the Abbott government is guilty of only one thing it is their failure to spell out exactly how the debt is going to impact on our lives forever and shame those in the Senate who are in denial about it and prevent the passing of bills that at least address he issues (it will never be eradicated).

Borrowing is not sustainable if revenue doesn’t increase, however you need to look at the facts, not just political spin doctoring.
Spending has been at a constant of 23-25% of GDP for the last few decades. Revenue however has fluctuated from 21% to 29% of GDP. The real issue is we have is lost revenue. Chances are without any increased spending the budget will come into the black without much effort from any government.
I’m not saying they should do nothing, but they terrorising they do to convince people that its all bad, is very irresponsible of them. Australia can afford many of these things, unfortunately the current governments selfish idea that their taxes shouldn’t pay for things they don’t like. Ummmm we all pay taxes and I don’t like some of the things they are spent on either. We will never really know how much money is wasted on stopping the boats, on subsidies to mining companies etc.

People need to stop listening to political spin and start reading factual information from experts.

Are you speaking as a spinner or an expert?

Bennop 3:00 pm 23 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

Seriously the ABC is not trying to undermine the current government. Anyone except for the right can see this. The ABC is reasonably close to unbiased and at worst slightly left leaning. That is the problem with the current government. They blame everyone else and think anybody not thinking like them are biased communist greenies and its simply not the case. They have lost support or all the moderate and swinging voters that gave them the last election but now feel like they were conned.

The issue with a double dissolution election is the quota for election in the senate will drop from 16.67% to 8.34% of votes. What will happen is more minor parties will win seats, meaning that any senate impasse is likely to strengthened rather than removed. Also on current polls they’d lose the election easily.

Leigh Sales recently interviewed the French Ambassador on 7.30, after the Paris terrorist murders.
Her last question to him was “are you offended that PM Abbott did not attend the solidarity march against terrorism in Paris?”
The ambassador replied “no”.
Did Sales also ask the Ambassador “are you offended that President Obama did not attend either?”
No, she didn’t.
That is what you call sliming someone – it happens regularly to members of the coalition from the ABC and Fairfax.
You would have to be seriously challenged or in denial not to see it.
On the issue of who would win an election, I don’t really care because we need a majority in both houses for either Labor or the coalition for the good of the country.

I have heard a couple of academic talk about the bias of the ABC before. They said whenever credible research is done to see whether the ABC is biased towards or against a right or left government, the research repeatedly shows that they are biased against ANY government of the day. Thats why they are sliming the coalition now, just like they slimed the labor part back then.

One great clip shows Rudd throwing a hissy fit after Copenhagen in 2010, when quiestioned by Kerry Obrien. I encourage your viewing.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site