The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Maybe their big plan is to remove that middle tier of government that we've always complained about funding?

Pretty funny that he didn't try this in 2001 (the centenary of federation). I feel a secession coming on....

This is a revival of Whitlamist regionalistion. Back then it was a good idea. It's still a good idea. However if he's pushing it I'm not so sure. I don't trust his reasons for doing anything. Anyway he's just having himself on I think, testing the water.

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, fellas! I was/am still mightily confused because, as you well know, this mob can take the very best of ideas & successfully turn it into something mighty ugly!

Here's how Bruce Petty answered my question this morning:

:wink:


Gotta hand it to Bruce, he doesn't beat around the bush, does he?

... & this morning's AGE editorial commenting of the war between the Libs & the states .... & the Howard "vision":

Political war is no way to build a better system
April 13, 2005/AGE editorial

Federal and state leaders have a duty to end the power plays and co-operate on delivering better government.

John Howard ventured last August that "there's a lot of dysfunctionality about the federal system" and Australia probably would not have state governments "if we were starting the country all over again". Views that would once have been heresy for a Liberal prime minister attracted little comment. While most people accept some serious problems have developed since Federation in 1901, they probably discounted the prospect of fundamental change. Then the Coalition was re-elected last October with an unexpected Senate majority. When Mr Howard expanded on his theme in a speech on Monday night, his words resounded with possibilities and, sadly, with implied threats to the states.

Last October, The Age called for a modern federalism, so Mr Howard will not get an argument from us about the need to clear up the costly duplication and confused responsibilities that lead inevitably to buck-passing and blame-shifting (but this is a two-way street). The disturbing aspects of his speech relate to how he intends to "solve" the problems. He portrayed this approach as a pragmatic one of "stepping in" where the states "fail to meet their core responsibilities". This is still centralism of a sort that attracted condemnation of his Labor predecessor, Gough Whitlam, and is likely to face challenges in the High Court. The Coalition should also be mindful that governments change. Is it comfortable with Labor, or other unknown governments, inheriting such power?

Of course, Mr Howard denies his Government might be interested in more power. "We have no desire to take over functions that are being properly discharged by the states and territories," he said. The point is that the Government is claiming the right to act on its own judgement of states' performance. (What, then, are the reform implications of federal neglect of aged care, child care, infrastructure development, environmental protection, higher education, trade and debt?) The Government wants greater control of industrial relations, universities, vocational training and, most recently, state taxes. Public hospitals are a bigger concern for most voters, but Mr Howard suggests hospitals would suffer under a remote federal bureaucracy and so are better off under the states. He knows a political liability when he sees one.

It is in the most politically difficult areas, however, that the need for governments to work together is greatest. They have managed to do so in a limited way, notably in framing national water policy, and Premier Steve Bracks has sensibly advocated broader co-operation even as other states threaten reckless retaliation if the Howard Government pursues a confrontational approach. A further risk for the Coalition is that voters may conclude it has become so used to power that it expects to have things all its own way. Australians have a record of voting for different parties at federal and state elections; they appear to appreciate the checks and balances this imposes on every government. It is for voters to decide if governments have failed in their duties. Any Commonwealth government that basically rejects voters' choices at state level invites a rebuke.

~

Ah, I think I get it now! Howard is making a grab for more federal power over the states because, with the majority in both houses after July 1, HE CAN! In fact, I think he's in a mind-set where he believes he'll be able to do just about any old conservative thing that he ever dreamed of! This sort of (freak) opportunity (for the conservatives) may never present itself again. Well, not in our lifetime, anyway ....

But like the commentator in the Australian said, what happens when the Libs lose a federal election?

Then Gough's plan is accomplished and anything that's wrong with centralism they can blame on the libs.

Maybe Johnny, like the Shrub, knows he won't be around forever and wants to leave his mark on the history books. I have no respect for him. History will vindicate we who feel that way.

I have to admit to a mindless prejudice against him. Having said that you can now evaluate my point in that light.

Whenever I hear him make a speech and there's that sort of breathless nasal tone in his voice as if he is about to achieve orgasm I immediately know that (a) he is getting ready for a fight or (b) he is getting ready for a fight.

I heard it in that speech. Therefore he is getting ready for a fight. Also did anyone see the pic in the Australian today? I don't know if it was recent but he was doing the steepled fingers thing.

Watch out Kym, it's on for young and old - time to whip up the secessionist hysteria.

Yes, the big mark on history, hinge! That occurred to me right after I posted. It almost seems to me that he's planned his retirement date & is throwing in some of his deeply cherished conservative blue prints for us to remember him by. Forever! (He hopes!)

Oh, I have absolutely NO prejudice about him at all, goodfielder! I approach all that spews forth from his mouth with a completely open mind! :wink:

You are probably right. He wants one helluva bunfight about these issues that are so close to his heart & hopes to finally do in all those he loathes with lasting policies (as his departing legacy?): lefties, greenies, whinging Labor premiers, unionists, "dole bludgers", "welfare cheats", single mothers, "bleeding hearts", the whole damn lot!
And holding the majority in both houses finally gives him this opportunity, doesn't it? But, hey, he's going to end up with chaos on his back bench. All those closet wets & small "l" Liberals are going to be sorely challenged by all this.

Well, it's a start, fingers crossed!:

Bomber Beazley puts his troops on alert
By Misha Schubert
Political correspondent
Canberra
April 13, 2005/the AGE



A bullish Kim Beazley talked tough at the National Press Club yesterday, promising Labor would return to a more traditional role of an opposition.
Photo: Chris Lane

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has promised an aggressive and unrelenting pursuit of the Howard Government once it takes control of the Senate on July 1, putting Labor on a war footing.

Lashing out at what he termed a deeply arrogant, deceitful and dangerous administration, Mr Beazley cited the Government's "systematic abuse" of taxpayer-funded programs such as regional grants as evidence of the need for the new strategy.

"What we have here is not a simple case of haphazard pork-barrelling," he told the National Press Club. "If we were talking about any other country, we'd be talking about corruption and calling for the IMF."

Mr Beazley said Labor would return to the traditional role of opposition - holding the Government to account instead of being co-opted into part ownership of its decisions. But he conceded Labor had failed to do this effectively during his previous six years at the helm.

"There are many people at fault here and those of us who've led oppositions in the past are at fault as well," he said. "(But) we should be tested on how we perform our real role in the Westminster system - giving the Government curry when it does the wrong thing."

Under its new strategy, Labor will create a backbench waste-watch committee to expose Government abuses and use parliamentary tactics to revitalise question time.

Mr Beazley said Labor would set higher standards of integrity for itself in government - but acknowledged voters would ultimately have to take that on trust.

"It is true that the Labor Party is as capable of breaking an election promise as the Liberal Party is," he conceded. "(But) you promise to be different and you hope that you would be."

He pledged new freedom-of-information laws weighted to disclosure, tougher rules on taxpayer-funded government advertising and a tighter code of conduct for ministers. But he refused to back a call for "truth in political advertising" laws, arguing they would not be necessary if independent institutions were more critical of government.

Asked whether Labor would rule out funding rorts of its own, Mr Beazley refused. "We will do what we need to do to fight our opponents and beat them, and then we'll change everything."

He predicted it was more likely he would face Peter Costello - a "very worn husk of a man" - at the next election rather than Prime Minister John Howard, who would probably depart having "trashed" Mr Costello's reputation as Treasurer.

Mr Costello hit back, saying: "Mr Beazley was a husk after one budget, wasn't he?"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Bomber-Beazley-puts-his-troops-on-alert/2005/04/12/1113251625916.html

Pressure to detail wages criticism
Brad Norington
April 13, 2005/the AUSTRALIAN

THE Howard Government is being pressured to explain exactly what it finds wrong with past rulings of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, after its submission to this year's national wage case failed to detail alleged mistakes.

AIRC president Geoff Giudice asked the Government yesterday for more information following much comment about the commission's "approach" in previous cases.

Justice Giudice was speaking on the first day of hearings in what could be Australia's last national wage case, as the Howard Government considers plans to scrap any future commission role and possibly take control over setting minimum wage rates.

In their public comments, Prime Minister John Howard, Treasurer Peter Costello and Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews have been highly critical of the commission for ignoring the low-paid and unemployed and not applying "economic rigour" while granting increases they consider too high.

But the public assault on the commission is not matched by criticisms in written submissions that the Government has so far handed to the bench.

Justice Giudice -- a Howard Government appointee -- is caught in a difficult political position as he considers the ACTU's claim for a $26.60-a-week rise in minimum wage rates.

With the Government arguing that any increase higher than $11 a week would be economically irresponsible, Justice Giudice knows that any decision his bench makes that displeases the Government could provide political justification to scrap the commission's century-old role in wage fixing for the low-paid.

Mr Andrews favours replacing Justice Giudice's wage bench with a new British-style Low Pay Commission that could advise the Government every year or two on appropriate minimum pay levels.

The Government's position on minimum pay was confused yesterday, with Mr Howard and Mr Andrews appearing at odds.

Last Friday, Mr Howard said a planned revamp of the minimum wage would not cut real wages and that people who relied on minimum wage rates would not be worse off.

But the Government's support this year for an $11 rise going to the workers on the bare weekly minimum of $467 and a wage freeze for workers on rates above $550 would see all workers worse off, compared with the cost of living.

Mr Andrews was reported by a Sydney newspaper in March saying that the commission had consistently failed the unemployed by granting excessive increases and that he believed minimum wage rates were $70 higher than they should be.

A spokesman for Mr Andrews said yesterday that the newspaper had misquoted the minister, misunderstanding what he had said in an interview.

"He did not say that or mean it," the spokesman said.

~

Pay rise fails to add up, tribunal told
By Paul Robinson
Workplace editor
April 14, 2005/the age



The Commonwealth was asked yesterday to explain how its pay rise offer of $11 a week contributed to the needs of the Australia's 1.5 million low-paid workers when it represented an effective pay cut.

Michael Lawler, deputy president of the Industrial Relations Commission, told the national minimum wage case he had checked the Reserve Bank's website and confirmed Australia's inflation rate was 2.6 per cent in the 12 months to December 2004.

A worker on the minimum wage of $542.20 a week would need a pay rise of $14.10 to protect real wage purchasing power and not suffer an effective pay cut, he said.

The Federal Government's advocate, Harry Dixon, SC, said the Commonwealth wanted to maintain high levels of employment and encourage employees to bargain with employers for wage rises.

The Commonwealth has also argued that its support for an $11-a-week pay rise is consistent with inflation forecasts.

Mr Dixon said low-paid jobs were "career stepping stones" to higher paid work, therefore low-paid employment should not be undermined through excessive minimum pay awards.

The commission is considering an application by the ACTU for a pay rise of $26.60 a week.

I get the feeling that, to use a hackneyed phrase, things have to get worse before they get better. Perhaps not having control of the Senate has in fact helped the Howard-Costello-Nationals Axis in ameliorating the effects of the crimes they have perpetrated on Australia. Come 1st of July when the Senate falls under the control of the Axis Powers in Australia the the Howard jackboot stamps in our faces forever, will we see the beginning of the end of this evil regime?

Get me a tumbril

psst, goodfielder, er .. what's a tumbril?

1. [noun] a farm dumpcart for carrying dung; carts of this type were used to carry prisoners to the guillotine during the French Revolution

But in the case of the Howard-Costello-Nats Axis it can be dual use - dung and dusted, as it were

Ah. I see!

Thanks.

Last Update: Thursday, April 14, 2005. 9:31pm (AEST)

Thresholds raised: Mr Howard says the changes will cut the cost of the scheme.

Medicare safety net benefits cut
The Federal Government has announced it will increase the threshold at which benefits are paid under its Medicare safety net to respond to a blow-out in the cost of the scheme.

Low-income earners currently receive 80 cents in the dollar for any out-of-pocket medical expenses, once they have spent $300 on bills.

The Government will increase that threshold to $500.

The threshold for other people will rise from $700 to $1,000 before the rebate will be paid.

John Howard has told Sky TV that the Government underestimated the popularity of the scheme.

"Since the election it has become apparent that the cost of it is going to be even greater than we thought at the time," he said.

"That is the reason why we believe, in the interest of maintaining it, we have to increase the safety net."

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says it does not believe the blow-out claim.

President Dr Bill Glasson says he is disappointed by the changes.

"Prior to the election this was supposedly a well-costed, well-thought out initiative," he said.

"They told us it was sustainable and we went to the election with those figures, so you could argue were those figures rubbery?

"I don't believe those figures were rubbery, I believe that the figures that are being displayed are in fact not a blow-out."

Dr Glasson says it is premature to cut the scheme.

"I couldn't have forewarned them there would have been a spike, it's only natural there would have been a spike as these out-of-pocket expenses came on to the books, so to speak but then it would have flattened out," he said.

"So I think it's very premature to be actually making an announcement six months after the election and a few weeks before the Budget."

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says the Government has broken an election promise and deceived the Australian public.

"This is so typical of John Howard. Say anything, do anything, promise anything to get yourself elected then after the election present the Australian public with a bill," he said.

Francis Sullivan, from Catholic Health Australia, says the changes are a cruel blow for average and low-income families, with many more set to miss out on refunds.

"It's the equivalent of a $200-a-year health tax and it also makes their chances of meeting the threshold very unrealistic," she said.

"Now on average you'll need to go to a GP 33 times before you'll make the threshold."

So, how many election promises broken now? Anyone keeping count?