Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour

If it's not an awkward question, in what ways did they experience difficulty & frustration? Within the party/government, itself, or from the broader community?

Turnbull set to stay on
By political correspondent Louise Yaxley and staff
Updated 1 hour 13 minutes ago


Malcolm Turnbull has been urged by colleagues to reconsider his decision to leave federal politics. (AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo)

Former Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is set to reverse his decision to quit politics.

Mr Turnbull announced on his website in early April that he would quit federal politics at the next election, but since then he has been urged by some colleagues to reconsider.

He has not confirmed his plans to run again, but the ABC understands he will announce he is withdrawing his resignation.

Mr Turnbull's backflip is seen by some of his colleagues as a big risk, but others welcome his change of mind, saying the party needs his talents in parliament.

His colleagues say Mr Turnbull would hold his Sydney seat of Wentworth if he runs again, after fearing the seat was at risk of being lost because of his decision to retire.

Colleagues say circumstances have changed since Mr Turnbull decided to retire.

In particular, the Federal Government's decision to shelve its plans for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) makes Mr Turnbull's differences with the Liberal position on the issue less of a problem.

Mr Turnbull was replaced by Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader in December last year after Liberal MPs revolted against Mr Turnbull's stance on emissions trading. ...<cont>

Rudd, spin and the CPRS
By Lyndal Curtis
Posted Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:18pm AEST


Kevin Rudd's shelving of the CPRS may be politically smart given the concerns whipped up by the Opposition. (AAP Image: Alan Porritt)

The Prime Minister's decision to park the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in a small garage, out of the way, until at least the end of 2012 could have one unexpected environmental benefit. There is now enough political spin around about the decision to power wind turbines for years....

And the spin is coming from every direction because the blame is a shared one.

The Opposition has leapt on Mr Rudd's decision as the sign of a scared leader. But the Opposition was calling for a delay under Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull. That's what Mr Rudd has delivered. The Opposition reneged on delivering the numbers the Government needed to pass the scheme, and tore down a leader in the process. And the Opposition now steadfastly refuses to support under any circumstances an ETS this side of the rest of the world coming to the party.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has accused Mr Rudd of now hiding what he wants to do on emissions trading. The ETS was the subject of a review with three reports by Professor Ross Garnaut. It was the subject of a weighty white paper. It is the subject of not one but two packages of legislation which have been debated and rejected three times now by Parliament. It's hardly an unknown even if the exact shape of the scheme does end up changing.

The Greens have also been critical of the Prime Minister. But the Greens always believed, and still do, that the CPRS legislation is a scheme that is deeply flawed, delivers billions of dollars to the big polluters, and had targets that were too low to make a meaningful difference to the environment. ...<cont>

Colleagues say circumstances have changed since Mr Turnbull decided to retire.

In particular, the Federal Government's decision to shelve its plans for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) makes Mr Turnbull's differences with the Liberal position on the issue less of a problem.

Mr Turnbull was replaced by Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader in December last year after Liberal MPs revolted against Mr Turnbull's stance on emissions trading.

How the Henry review will affect you
PETER MARTIN
May 1, 2010/the AGE

DRINKERS of fine wine will be spared the pain inflicted on cigarette smokers in the Henry review. In fact, they're likely to find Australia's most expensive drop more than $100 a bottle cheaper. But drinkers of cask wine are in for a shock.

A move towards a single flat volumetric tax on alcohol is set to cut the price of a $620 bottle of Grange by $133 but add $20 to a four-litre cask.

The dramatic changes are some of one of many driven by the Henry review's pursuit of simplicity and fairness.

Its recommendations would also increase the salary bills of charities, which would no longer be able to offer workers untaxed fringe benefits; subject many more businesses to payroll tax; cut tax on savings accounts; boost superannuation tax for high-income earners and cut family payments for older children in order to increase them for preschoolers.

The review finds that while beer is sensibly taxed per unit of alcohol, wine is taxed by price, with rebates for small producers. This means expensive bottles are very heavily taxed, some bottles attract no alcohol tax and cask wine is taxed at just 5¢ per standard drink.

The proposed flat tax set at the packaged full-strength beer rate of 39¢ per standard drink would push up the price of a four-litre cask from $15 to $35, according to the Australian Hotels Association, while taking $6 off a $54 cabernet sauvignon.

A 285-millilitre draft beer would climb 28¢, while $9 would be sliced off the price of a $43 bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label whisky. Alcopops, recently subject to a tax increase, would be cheaper.

The change is likely to be phased in over a number of years because of the disruption it would cause.

Bank accounts will benefit more quickly from another attempt at simplicity. The review has found that the real effective tax rate on interest earned in bank accounts approaches 50 per cent for a middle earner on the 31.5 per cent rate. By contrast, the real effective tax on earnings from shares is around 10 per cent, and minus 30 per cent if they are bought with borrowed money. The effective real tax rate on superannuation approaches minus 40 per cent.

In order to even things up and advantage saving, the review will cut the rate of tax on bank interest while sharply increasing tax on superannuation for high-income earners.

The review flatly rejects pleas from the superannuation industry to lift compulsory contributions but endorses a separate small compulsory levy to fund a national disability insurance scheme.

It recommends measures to encourage so-called ''longevity insurance'' under which super payouts are turned into guaranteed lifetime fortnightly payments.

Insurance itself should in the committee's view become free of all taxes other than the GST.

Stamp duty will remain on real estate transactions. In return, the family home will remain exempt from capital gains tax. But capital gains arrangements for rental properties face a shake-up.

The number of different welfare benefits would shrink and family benefits would be reconfigured to pay the most in the preschool years when high childcare costs mean expenses are their highest.

Businesses will face an extension of payroll tax rather than its abolition as many had hoped. But businesses may be relieved of the need to calculate and pay fringe benefits tax.

The review has considered making it payable in the hands of employees rather than their employers and recommends for the first time imposing FBT on the employees of charities.

If the government adopts the recommendation to extend the tax to the charities it is likely to phase in the change.

Despite early enthusiasm for a hefty cut in the 30 per cent rate of company tax, the review now believes that only a small cut is needed in the changed circumstances that have followed the global financial crisis. Mining companies would be hit with an extra resources rent tax when their profit climbs into so-called super-profit territory. They face a supertax of 40 per cent in addition to company tax.

It's hard to know what to make of that, Deb, in terms of a government delivering or not delivering on its stated policies. But I do understand why you'd prefer not to say more.

Maybe if we voice chat!

Grins, grimaces as Turnbull rejoins 'fray'
JOSH GORDON
May 2, 2010/the AGE

PUBLICLY, Tony Abbott was all smiles when Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced he would stay on to fight for his seat of Wentworth at the next election, less than a month after confirming he would quit politics.

''Delighted to welcome Malcolm back to the parliamentary team,'' the Opposition Leader said. ''It's going to be good for the seat of Wentworth, it's going to be good for the Liberal Party, it's going to be good for Australia.''

In Turnbull style, he immediately criticised the government over climate change - the issue that cost him his leadership and all but cleaved his party in two. In addition to being ''overwhelmed'' by local residents' emails and letters, the emissions trading backdown was central to his decision to stay on.

''I think Kevin Rudd's shelving of the ETS … is the most extraordinary act of political gutlessness, of political cowardice, any of us could ever imagine,'' Mr Turnbull said.

''Now I believe that political leaders have to have guts, they have to have courage. And that is the reason why I am stepping back into the fray …''

For some Liberals, there is concern that Mr Turnbull will haunt Mr Abbott's leadership, serving to again destabilise the party. And just when the Coalition was finally presenting itself as a united force and rattling Labor.

One Liberal said: ''Frankly, I think it is incredulous that he is standing and that his first comments were attacking the Labor Party for not having an ETS.

''It can't help but destabilise the party. If we win the next election, Malcolm will always be the predator wanting to be prime minister. If we don't win the next election, Malcolm will be a predator wanting to be leader.''

Said another Liberal: ''No one thinks Malcolm is going to be content on the backbench. It's like James Packer saying he wants to be a croupier. It doesn't make sense.''...<cont>

.... As political reversals go, they just cannot get much bigger. Rudd's decision to defer the carbon pollution reduction scheme until at least 2012 will come to be seen as a defining point in his prime ministership.

Throughout the Labor Party's support base, serious questions are being asked about Rudd's authenticity and about his professional courage. An overwhelming majority of Labor voters - along with, the polls tell us, a fair proportion of Coalition supporters - want action on climate change, including a cap-and-trade scheme.

And while there are good short-term political reasons for making the change, there is also disillusionment within sections of the caucus. Labor MPs are now having to explain the deferment not so much to the swinging voters in their seats as to their rusted-on backers.

After all, this is not some policy kite that's been flown in order to test public opinion. It was a solid part of Labor policy well before the election, something upon which Rudd campaigned hard along the way to knocking off Howard in 2007 and then pursued once in office.

And now it's dust. How did it come to this? .....