Aus Election:Coalition has costed just 1% of policy promises

[bobalot]

Cocky Coalition has costed just 1% of policy promises
BETWEEN them, Tony Abbott and Nationals leader Warren Truss announced three new measures at yesterday's Coalition policy launch. But none of them were costed, and one was not even fleshed out.

It's a measure of the Coalition's confidence that it no longer feels obliged to spell out what its policies will cost, or how they will be funded. Its campaign is going like a dream; everyone's focus is on Labor divisions. Why rock the boat?

With four days left before the deadline for submitting policies for costing, the Coalition's running tally of new spending measures and tax cuts is almost $40 billion.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Yet just six measures totalling $288 million - less than 1 per cent of that - have been sent for costing.

Its three initiatives yesterday had no costing at all. They included:

■ relaxing the work test for rural students to receive the youth allowance, which Labor costed at up to $270 million over four years.

■ a breathtaking yet unspecified proposal to offer guaranteed jobs to ''young indigenous people and others trapped in intergenerational poverty'' if they give up their rights to welfare payments.

■ the offer to reimburse householders for inspections - and if necessary, removal - of Pink Batts installed under Labor's home insulation program. Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said this could be funded within the existing program. Well, with respect, that depends how many people use it, and how many Pink Batts need to be removed.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Wayne Swan announced:

■ the cost of a passport will be increased by $18 from January 1, from $208 to $226, and be indexed annually thereafter for inflation (raising $193 million over the next four years)

■ the Tax Office will get more resources to pursue tax fraud, especially by businessmen setting up 'phoenix' companies - letting one business die with unpaid debts, then starting up a new one.

Source

It's really fucking unbelievable how much conservatives get a free ride in the media when it comes to the economy. The Coalition's spending promises and tax cuts total almost $40 BILLION. Tony has so far has flat out refused to say where the this money is supposedly coming from and he has ruled out tax rises (Apparently his company tax hike is "Temporary").

At the same time he claims he can pay back the debt faster* but refuses to commit to a timeline or explain why it will paid back faster. Unbelievable.

There has barely been a murmur in the media about this gigantic discrepancy. This is not even on the front page. I don't think I have ever seen such soft treatment for a politician ever in my entire life in Australia. Even for a cynic like myself, I'm fucking shocked.

*For those of you who don't know, Australia went into debt during the height of the recession (Stimulus spending, declining revenue, etc). However, the budget is set to swing into surplus in a few years. We are one of the few countries to emerge relatively unscathed from the GFC.

[aerius]

Sounds familiar. Make tax cuts and spend some stimulus money. Assume that the economy will provide, because that's what the free market does. Pull out some charts with completely bullshit estimates on why the money will be there. Get elected. "Unexpectedly" run up a deficit that's twice as large as the worst case estimates because all the numbers were bullshit. We did that in Canada and went from a $10 billion surplus to a $50 billion deficit.

[Archaic`]

I'm prepared to give the coalition a free pass on this one, for one very specific reason. Namely...the opposition of the day can't cost them without running them by the government of the day first, and the potential is there in law for the government to hold them up indefinitely without explanation or reason. Minor parties have it even worse, they can't even get theirs costed by treasury at all.

Here's a blog written by QUT Law Lecturer Peter Black on the issue.

Another electoral law that needs changing

Posted by Peter Black:

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this blog and elsewhere this week about the need for Australia to implement a system of online enrolment. However, that is far from the only issue where our electoral laws need modernising. Indeed, I came across another example of a law that needs amending while reading Peter Martin's piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, Lack of big choices suits both parties. In that piece Martin laments the fact that not since 1998 has an important economic decision been laid for the public at an election. In part he says this is because "good economic management is about responding to events as they happen". The other reason is far more sinister and a reason for genuine concern:

Another reason there are no stark choices is that the rules have been rigged.

The so-called Charter of Budget Honesty includes one very odd provision. The resources of Treasury and Finance are available to the opposition to cost its policies, but only after the election has been called and only if the opposition policies are delivered to the Prime Minister. That's right: if Abbott wants to get something costed quietly, before announcing it he has to show it to the Prime Minister. If he wants to get it costed in public after it is announced, it is as good as certain that Finance and Treasury will come up with a different cost and he will be seen to have made a gaffe.

The government faces no such problems. It can quietly submit proposals for official costings before the campaign and is under no obligation to let its opponents know what it is planning.

In opposition, Labor's Lindsay Tanner campaigned against the rule and introduced a private members bill to overturn it. In government he let it stand.

Indeed, clause 29 of the Charter of Budget Honesty sets out exactly that procedure. It provides that, during the Caretaker Period prior to a general election, the Secretaries to the Treasury and of the Department of Finance and Deregulation (the Secretaries) may be asked by the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition through the Prime Minister, to cost their publicly announced policies. A request is to:

* be in writing;
* fully outline the policy to be costed, giving relevant details; and
* state the purpose or intent of the policy.

A request from the Leader of the Opposition is to be provided to the Prime Minister, who may then refer it to the responsible Secretaries. Secretaries are not obliged or authorised to take action in relation to any request, unless the Prime Minister has referred the request to them. The Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition may withdraw a request at any time. A withdrawal by the Prime Minister must be in writing to the Secretaries. A withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition (in writing) is to be given to the Prime Minister, who will then notify the Secretaries of the withdrawal.

This really is a ridiculous procedure. Requiring the Leader of the Opposition to show his or her policies to the Prime Minster before they are announced, in order to get the costed by the Treasury and of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, gives an unfair political advantage to the incumbent government and discourages the opposition from setting out bold policy announcements. Instead it encourages policy timidity and draws the two parties closer together on fiscal matters. There is no good reason the leader of the opposition shouldn't be able to submit policies directly to the Secretaries for official costings during an election campaign, when the government is caretaker mode, without having to go through the Prime Minister first. Hopefully no matter which party wins the election, this is another aspect of electoral law reform that will be reformed.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its rather a non-sequitor, but until today I didn't know 'costed' was a proper verb.

[Stark]

Who cares how much it costs! Re open Nauru! Stop the boats! ONLY TONY CAN SAVE US!

[Stofsk]

As much as I don't want Tony to win, Labor has been running a shit campaign. This is pretty much the first election I've experienced where I haven't wanted any of the major parties to win.

[pj1351]

I'm prepared to give the coalition a free pass on this one, for one very specific reason. Namely...the opposition of the day can't cost them without running them by the government of the day first, and the potential is there in law for the government to hold them up indefinitely without explanation or reason. Minor parties have it even worse, they can't even get theirs costed by treasury at all.

Here's a blog written by QUT Law Lecturer Peter Black on the issue.

In opposition, Labor's Lindsay Tanner campaigned against the rule and introduced a private members bill to overturn it. In government he let it stand.

And as I recall, didn't the Labor party themselves submit almost all of their own spending promises for costing less than 24 hours before polling day, at the last election?

[Stark]

Look vote for Labor all you want, they're never going to stop the boats!

[adam_grif]

Its rather a non-sequitor, but until today I didn't know 'costed' was a proper verb.

Ditto.

It's clear that nobody gives two shits about actually important things, and this is all just for show.

Look vote for Labor all you want, they're never going to stop the boats!

Didn't both parties promise to do the completely-useless overseas processing thing?

[Stark]

More the 50% of Tony's platform items in every list I've seen is STOP THE BOATS. In the Australian yesterday it was 66%, the only other item being 'make rich people richer'.

[Ford Prefect]

It should be surprise that the Liberals have had a free run this election, because of the endless cock-ups over int he Labor camp. Labor can't even sling mud properly: they keep going on and on and on about Work Choices, and yet I've never heard anything from Labor talking about how Abbot plans to scrap the NBN, even though that's killing a nation-building project with huge long term benefits. Turns out the major parties are so fucking complacent and the Australian populace has no fucking idea what a government is actually supposed to do. Holy God, if I hear someone mention the budget again as though it is the fulcrum upon which all Australian politics rests I will kick off their head.

[bobalot]

I'm prepared to give the coalition a free pass on this one, for one very specific reason. Namely...the opposition of the day can't cost them without running them by the government of the day first, and the potential is there in law for the government to hold them up indefinitely without explanation or reason. Minor parties have it even worse, they can't even get theirs costed by treasury at all.

That's still bullshit. If this were a matter of several hundred million dollars, I can see why one could give them a free pass. They can cut other programs to make up for their program.

However..........this is FORTY BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. Like seriously? Where the hell is all this money coming from? Not even a single hint? How's he supposed to pay for all these programs without raising taxes? How is he supposedly going to pay off the debt quicker when he has promised to spend more than the government?

This guy really is the Liberal party's Mark Latham... except the compliant media is taking turns to kiss his arse.

Look vote for Labor all you want, they're never going to stop the boats!

The most hilarious thing is that most illegal immigrants come by plane (95%+) and a significant proportion of them are white people. I don't see billion dollar processing facilities being built in some pacific island for them.

[Lusankya]

The most hilarious thing is that most illegal immigrants come by plane (95%+) and a significant proportion of them are white people. I don't see billion dollar processing facilities being built in some pacific island for them.

If a political party stated that they were going to put all of those people in processing facilities in the middle of the pacific and then actually did it, that would make my day.

[bobalot]

The most hilarious thing is that most illegal immigrants come by plane (95%+) and a significant proportion of them are white people. I don't see billion dollar processing facilities being built in some pacific island for them.

If a political party stated that they were going to put all of those people in processing facilities in the middle of the pacific and then actually did it, that would make my day.

You know what I would love? Some guy to actually ask this question in a debate. Lay out the statistics, and ask this exact question:

"Why do brown illegal immigrants who come by boat get sent to detention centres while white illegal immigrants who come by plane and are far more numerous get a free pass?"

[pj1351]

The most hilarious thing is that most illegal immigrants come by plane (95%+) and a significant proportion of them are white people. I don't see billion dollar processing facilities being built in some pacific island for them.

If a political party stated that they were going to put all of those people in processing facilities in the middle of the pacific and then actually did it, that would make my day.

You know what I would love? Some guy to actually ask this question in a debate. Lay out the statistics, and ask this exact question:

"Why do brown illegal immigrants who come by boat get sent to detention centres while white illegal immigrants who come by plane and are far more numerous get a free pass?"

I for one would definitely pay to see leaders (and deputies) of all the major parties forced to sit down and try to answer that. Unfortunately, it'd be wasted money, because they'd all find ways to not-really-answer the question. It's what they do best.

[hongi]

This guy really is the Liberal party's Mark Latham... except the compliant media is taking turns to kiss his arse.

Speaking of which, I did not forsee the change from attention seeking douchebag into atttention seeking douchebag/'reporter'.

[Xisiqomelir]

Government is obliged to cost out its wild schemes in AU? That's fantastic, I wish we could get some of that here.

[Stofsk]

I really hate this election. Did anyone see the 7:30 Report last night? Wayne Swan came across as a bullshitter and intolerably smug tryhard, while Joe Hockey looked calm and measured throughout.

Goddamnit why did the Liberals have to go and put that dickhead Tony Abbott in charge for fucks sake!

[Stark]

Because most of Australia thinks 'stop the boats' is a compelling policy statement, that's why.

[Stofsk]

The boats are part of it, but I'm more lamenting the fact that Turnbull was ousted over last year's ETS debacle.

And both major parties have tried to address the 'stop the boats' 'dilemma', which is why I hate this election. A complete non-issue, mountain out of a mole hill problem, when there are so many real problems in this country that aren't being addressed.

[Vympel]

The bookies are still leaning towards the ALP to win. I have hope, because Tony Abbott is an ass-goblin.

[bobalot]

I really hate this election. Did anyone see the 7:30 Report last night? Wayne Swan came across as a bullshitter and intolerably smug tryhard, while Joe Hockey looked calm and measured throughout.

Goddamnit why did the Liberals have to go and put that dickhead Tony Abbott in charge for fucks sake!

I would have seriously considered voting for Malcolm if he ran. He seemed moderate enough and scientifically literate, but that was too much for the retard wing of the Liberal party.

[Stark]

Yeah, if Turnbull was in charge, I'd have to think about it too. He was Liberal but not a psycho, and he was a lot more votable than Julia Gillard.

As it is I'll basically be forced to vote Greens and hope for a close split of power.

[xt828]

I have to admit that I was surprised that Joe Hockey had such an ignominious exit from the Liberal leadership ballot when Turnbull got the arse - I seem to recall a lot of speculation that he'd be the leader to take them forward, and he's always come across as being quite professional in his approach. Turnbull was always going to be too centrist for the fuckwad wing of the Liberals.

IMO the best option to hope for here is a tight ALP win and both parties having around 30-odd seats in the Senate, with the Greens holding the swing. I'd love for the Secular or Sex Party to be in that spot, but the Greens seem more likely. I'd also appreciate it if Victorians could refrain from voting Family First this time.

[bobalot]

Yeah, if Turnbull was in charge, I'd have to think about it too. He was Liberal but not a psycho, and he was a lot more votable than Julia Gillard.

As it is I'll basically be forced to vote Greens and hope for a close split of power.

Being in the rail industry, I can see a shitload of money flowing into interstate infrastructure after years of neglect. The hospital takeover is a good idea as well. So I will be voting for Labor.

BTW, how is letting infrastructure run down and blowing a once in a lifetime mining surpluses on middle-class welfare considered good economic management? I have never understood why the Liberals got all this kudos for being great economic managers. They did exactly one reform (the GST), a fraction of what Paul Keating did.