As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
you've raised a good point Cherples, Julia wasn't the only one to backstab in recent times, probably wasn't the first to do it either.
it's just used as a weak argument when there is not much else to complain about
I congratulate the Greens on their party decision not to support the fuel excise rise too 
aren't graphs just marvelous...
Mining boom policies dig a hole for economy
Itโs in the nature of the news media to focus on the new, on the bit thatโs changing. So when people like me bang on about the resources boom โ as weโve been doing for about a decade โ itโs probably inevitable we leave many people with an exaggerated impression of the size of the oh-so-important mining industry.
Most people have little idea how mining compares with the rest of the economy. Some, when asked, say it may account for a third of the total.
Sorry to mislead. Itโs actually a bit over 10 per cent of all the goods and services we produce. If that doesnโt seem like much, it is. Itโs a bit more than the whole of the manufacturing industry contributes and about three times what agriculture does.
The Labor government bungled its attempt to ensure the minersโ profits were adequately taxed. But, rather than correcting Laborโs errors, Tony Abbott has pledged to abolish the tax and let the foreign miners off the hook. Then heโll wonder why the huge expansion in mining production weโre now seeing is creating so few jobs.
It gets worse. Not only are we under-taxing the miners, weโre giving them lots of subsidies. Not only does the federal government give them a rebate on the excise on their diesel fuel, the state governments give them assistance by building the roads, railways and ports they need to ship their minerals abroad.
According to calculations by the Australia Institute, the states gave the mining industry $3.2 billion in concessions in the financial year just ending. Queensland gave assistance worth almost $1.5 billion, mainly by providing railway infrastructure and freight discounts.
Western Australia spent almost $1.4 billion, mainly on roads and port infrastructure. Other statesโ subsidies are much smaller โ $140 million in NSW, $40 million in Victoria โ but so too are their receipts from mining royalties.
It turns out the Queenslanders' subsidies to mining are equivalent to almost 60 per cent of the royalties they receive. In WA itโs about a quarter, and in NSW itโs less than 10 per cent. In Victoria, however, itโs three-quarters.
And this while governments, federal and state, are crying poor and cutting spending on many worthy causes.
Apparently, the end of the age of entitlement applies to poor people, not to big corporations. And thatโs true for foreigners, not just locals.
As Ian McAuley, of the University of Canberra, has pointed out, weโre slashing our planned spending on foreign aid because we can no longer afford such generosity, but by abolishing the mining tax weโre being very generous to big foreign mining companies.
This makes sense?
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mining-boom-policies-dig-a-hole-for-economy-20140624-zsjsc.html#ixzz35...
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mining-boom-policies-dig-a-hole-for-economy-20140624-zsjsc.html#ixzz35...
"aren't graphs just marvelous..."
I agree, and they can be appreciated by all, even those with a minimal understanding of economics. Well almost all.
Australian metal ore and mineral quarterly exports ($A millions) since 1969.
"Most people have little idea how mining compares with the rest of the economy. Some, when asked, say it may account for a third of the total.
"Sorry to mislead. Itโs actually a bit over 10 per cent of all the goods and services we produce. If that doesnโt seem like much, it is. Itโs a bit more than the whole of the manufacturing industry contributes and about three times what agriculture does."
I agree with: ""Most people have little idea how mining compares with the rest of the economy"
"The mining industry's contribution to the Australian economy is now $121 billion a year. In terms of export income, it generates $138 billion per annum, which represents over half (54 per cent) of total goods and services. Across the nation mining employs 187,400 people directly, and a further 599,680 in support industries. In wages and salaries that amounts to $18 billion; an additional $21 billion is contributed through company tax and royalty payments. Not least, the industry spends $35.2 billion on new capital investment, $5.7 billion on exploration, and $4.2 billion on research and development.
A number of large multinational mining companies including BHP Billiton, Newcrest, Rio Tinto, Alcoa, Chalco, Shenhua (a Chinese mining company), Alcan and Xstrata operate in Australia. There are also a lot of small mining and mineral exploration companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Overall, the resources sector represents almost 20% of the ASX market by capitalisation, and almost one third of the companies listed.
"The Australian economy is dominated by its service sector, comprising 68% of GDP. The mining sector represents 10% of GDP; the "mining-related economy" represents 9% of GDP โ the total mining sector is 19% of GDP.[ Economic growth is largely dependent on the mining sector and agricultural sector with the products to be exported mainly to the East Asian marke"
If you think the mining profits are too high , buy some mining shares, which I know from your post you do not have. BHP have a dividend around 4% on a depressed share price of $36.45, big deal!, my Telstra shares are returning over 10% FF.
Yes: "Most people have little idea how mining compares with the rest of the economy" because all they see are large $figures, which they want some of (gimme gimme), regardless of the economic structures involved and overall impact upon our economy.
nษฅยบษพ
blahblahblahblahblah......expert, expert, expert what a waste -never mind well worth reading, unless of course you are an expert on everything.
The ABC of Bias
โBrooks found not guilty of hacking chargesโ
Headline in โThe Herald-Sunโ
Ok, it seems to go like this. Private media companies are allowed to be biased because theyโre private. Fair enough. But the ABC shouldnโt be biased because itโs taxpayer funded. And we know it is biased, because it doesnโt agree with the private media companies. Who we accept are allowed to be biased!
So clearly, the most important thing in the hacking trial was that Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty. The fact that Andy Coulson was found guilty is not all that important. And the fact that the ABC chose to accentuate the negative rather than the positive just shows their bias. Any suggestion that the Murdoch paper tried to spin it to make themselves sound less culpable is just ludicrous. Besides it was in Britainโฆ
The ABC show further bias in that they fail to mention that a large number of Muslims are in Iraq fighting with ISIS. One estimate put the number as high as 150, which is higher to the number of people who think that Tony Abbott hasnโt broken any election promises, but not quite as high as projected public school class sizes, once Christopher Pyne has way.
As Steve Price said on The Project, when telling us that he didnโt buy the argument that young Muslims may feel hated and vilified, โBut itโs also theyโve got Australian passports, you donโt leave the country where you were born, if youโve got an Australian passport and get on a plane and go and start shooting people in other countries. If you want to do that โ stay there!โ Heโs right, of course, only Islamic people would get on a plane and go over to Iraq and start shooting people. No Australian โ and clearly these people arenโt Australian, even if they were born here โ would ever do anything like that.
Thereโs no reason for anyone of the Islamic faith to feel disenfranchised. Unless theyโre an extremist like the guest on The Project who suggested that we needed to make some effort to understand why young men would want to go and join ISIS. Price found it worrying a man like that was teaching at a university. Anyone who attempts to understand anotherโs motivation is a dangerous radical.
In his Lowy Institute paper โBeyond the Boomโ, John Edwards has lined up a series of cherished Australian despondencies and blown them up.
ยท There was no mining boom, really, so it isnโt ending
ยท In any case, increased volumes will offset the decline in prices
ยท Incomes rose less during the decade to 2012 than the decade before
ยท Australia has not been complacent
ยท It is not a high-cost country
ยท Any export price windfall has been saved
ยท The budget deficits are due to lower revenue, not higher spending
ยท Most of that fall in revenue was due to John Howardโs tax cuts
In short, Australia has not been living in a foolโs paradise during a mining boom, and there is no crisis now.
John Edwards is one of Australiaโs most distinguished economists, and is currently a director of the Reserve Bank.
He writes: โIn all important respects -- savings, investment in physical assets, and in human capital, workforce participation, moderation in both household consumption and housing spending -- Australians during the resources boom have been more frugal, hard-working and attentive to the future than they were during the two previous decades, though those two decades are often recalled as models of exemplary behaviour compared to our later fecklessness.โ
He describes it as the โblack armband account of Australian economic historyโ.
โAustraliaโs economic history is often portrayed as one long sequence of policy errors, corrected only occasionally and only as a prelude to another period of complacent neglect engendering new errors.โ
Dr Edwardsโ argument that there was no boom and now no crisis will be inconvenient for those looking to use crisis to push a political or ideological agenda, so heโll no doubt be accused of being an adviser to former Labor Treasurer and Prime Minister, Paul Keating -- which he was.
But his statistics and analysis are compelling: thereโs not much doubt that Australians are beating themselves up and worrying about nothing.
Two serious questions emerge from his work: first, as the barman said to the horse, why the long face? And second, how can the success be sustained?
Dr Edwards answers the first question thus: because itโs felt that โonly a crisis can motivate worthwhile changeโ.
So even though participants in the economic debate are well aware of Australiaโs record of achievement, the whole tenor of the debate is often influenced by the premise that the Australian economy has failed in order to promote reform.
โIt is a habit of mind, a routine, a trick of public conversation congenial to media headlines and Question Time histrionics.
โIt is not entirely harmless. It very often disguises as imperative reforms in the general interest, proposals that in reality merely benefit one group โฆ over another.โ
I think there is a little more to it than that: economic commentary that just says everything is fine and that nothing needs to change doesnโt seem very weighty, not really worth the price of admission.
Far more credible and worthy is a column or speech that delivers a stiff lecture about the reforms that are needed, or warns of an impending crisis, or both. Satisfaction is both given and received.
Another reason, in my view, is that too much attention is paid to political oppositions in this country. Australiaโs generally diligent media tries to give equal voice to both sides of politics; in fact the Oppositionโs response is often the lead to a story on a government announcement.
The Oppositionโs job is to constantly argue that everything is terrible because of the shortcomings of the government. Some do this better than others; the more effective the Opposition, the more convincing and prevalent the idea that everything is terrible.
Tony Abbottโs Coalition was a very effective Opposition indeed, helped by the fact that the Labor Government was hopelessly ineffective at communication, especially about economics. For example, the political pitch that there is a budget emergency and that the carbon tax has caused an industrial crisis has been so successful that a sale was made; the propositions have been purchased.
As for the question of how Australiaโs success can be sustained, John Edwards basically concludes that not much is needed. To the extent that something is required, it is all about people and businesses, not the government.
โAustraliaโs future success depends less on changing government policies than on the responses business and individuals make to the growth of the vast regional economy based on China.
โHow the Australian economy engages with this regional community and particularly whether it can extend the engagement beyond mining products into food, manufacturing and services, is to my mind the most interesting challenge โฆ Continuing success will mostly depend on the skills of Australians -- the nationโs human capital.โ
But overall, John Edwardsโ treatise is a soothing one: โWithin reach of a quarter-century of unbroken economic success, and with trends in the global economy suiting Australia, it is surely not remarkable that revolutionary changes are not now required.โ
And unlike most pieces of economic cheerfulness, this one feels weighty.
"Tony Abbottโs Coalition was a very effective Opposition indeed, helped by the fact that the Labor Government was hopelessly ineffective at communication, especially about economics"
When economics are discussed here (or just mentioned via numerous ("Independent"?) C&P,s I would assert the same is true.