The Abbott Government's first Intergenerational Report examined through jaundiced eyes

Peter Martin, Economics Editor of The Age newspaper observed on 3 March 2015:

The Intergenerational Report is required by law every 5 years. It assesses the long-term sustainability of the government's policies 40 years into the future. This one will take us through to 2055. It's 2 month's late, although that's not the fault of the treasury. Finance minister Mathias Cormann was keen to tell the Senate that it's a report of the government, not the treasury. It's inherently political. Sensitivities over its immigration projections (and possibly what it will say about climate change) have delayed it as government ministers have tossed drafts back and forth.

So what does the Abbott Government tell us in its first and Australia’s fourth Intergenerational Report?

Well, it tells us in those 145 pages that Australia has an economy that has had an unprecedented 23 year stretch of unbroken economic growth that is continuing today as I write.

It seems the nation also has a well-functioning health system.

Both of these admissions will come as a surprise to many because since the Coalition won government in September 2013 we have been repeatedly told that the country was facing a ‘debt and deficit disaster’ and, the health system was on the financial sick list so we needed to put our hands in our pockets to pay GPs a bit extra because government couldn’t afford to continue paying the Medicare rebate bill.

For some strange reason the federal government appears to believe that all males and females born since November 2013 have an average life expectancy at birth of 91.5 and 93.6 years today when what the Australian Bureau of Statistics actually said on 7 November 2013 was; "A boy born today could expect to live 79.9 years, while a girl could expect to live 84.3 years. For those approaching retirement age, say 65 years, males could expect to live a further 19 years and females a further 22 years". It defies belief that Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann believe that in just on sixteen months life expectancy at birth has risen 11.6 years for males and 9.3 years for females.

The federal government also informs us that the elderly are living an inconveniently long time and, in its opinion more of them should remain at work or go back to work after retirement age because they are costing the government too much to keep alive - even at the minimum levels of income support and physical care it is willing to fund.

It tells us that workers’ average weekly wage will increase over the next forty years, but not at the rate wages have over the last forty years and government expects all workers to put shoulders to the wheel in order to be more productive – and swallow the reforms allegedly required to make them all that bit more competitive and flexible.

To that end its review of Australia’s workplace relations framework is apparently an important building block in facilitating the development of new markets, and allow businesses and the public sector to harness innovation.

The young had a national unemployment rate of 14.2% in January 2015 and will probably face a high unemployment rate into the future as it appears the only solution the Abbott Government has to date is to make applicants under 25 years of age wait six months before unemployment benefits and make them also ‘work for the dole’.  Presumably because, along with people with disabilities, young unemployed people are expected to generate gains in GDP and income growth over the next 40 years.

By 2055 the Abbott Government thinks that government will only need to spend an extra $400 of its own money per student to keep primary, high school and tertiary education in tip top shape.

It expects that federal government won’t be spending more money in forty years’ time on defence materiel than it does today.

Infrastructure is good to have and the nation needs MOAR & MOAR, but the Abbott Government is not quite sure how we are going to get all those roads, tunnels, by-passes, bridges, railway lines and ports it is lusting after - except perhaps by 'efficiently' selling off some which exist already to its rich mates and the foreign power best new friends of Tony Abbott.

The Abbott Government has included a handy little graph at Page 35 which shows that by 30 June 2014 its own spending spree had increased the underlying cash balance and output gap deficit to around 3% and 1.75% of GDP respectively.

Apparently the nation needs strong economic growth and a sustainable budget before it can tackle climate change. Part of any effort to mitigate those pesky adverse impacts caused by global warming is to take a proverbial broom to the countryside – because we need “Clean land” and “Clean air”– and one of the best ways to achieve that is to continue hacking away at ‘green tape’ thereby weakening the community’s ability to protect the environment.

Confident that it will get its data retention legislation through parliament the Abbott Government intends to deliver government services digitally, thereby making the forthcoming  mass surveillance of the populace as detailed as possible. Australia is about to become a hackers Nirvana sometime before 2055 and, people living in remote and rural regions will probably still face a level of difficulty in reliably accessing the Internet and therefore have intermittent problems accessing these same government services.

As for net migration, it is expected to be an est. 215,000 people per annum from 2018 onwards and, Australia’s population is predicted to be 39.7 million in 40 years’ time. Which must leave local governments across the country wondering where they are collectively going to put around 427,027 extra residents each year.

The bottom line appears to be that if Australia wants a bright and prosperous future, then every one of the Abbott Government’s punitive policies and budget cuts, rejected by voters and the Senate to date, need to be implemented.

Now who didn’t see that coming?

David Hicks' conviction vacated: Every member of the former Howard Government, including the current Australian Prime Minister, now have egg on their faces

Every Australian Senator and Member of Parliament should take note of this monumental error by the former Howard Government, its prime minister, ministers and backbenchers – which included Prime Minister Tony Abbott - and the failure of domestic national security agencies to offer advice based on law and fact.

What this clearly demonstrates is that an Australian Parliament when passing anti-terrorism/national security legislation and, a Federal Government when creating policy in relation to terrorism/national security or responding to citizens held by foreign powers, need to eschew any tendency to hysteria and block their ears to dog whistling in the media when considering legislation before the House of Representatives and/or the Senate or the circumstances of individual citizens.

Governments make mistakes and giving them the additional powers will not eliminate the potential for error. Instead it may perversely increase this risk.

ABC News 19 February 2015:

Australia's David Hicks, a former prisoner at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, has won a legal challenge to his terrorism conviction before a military court in Cuba….

Last year, an appeals court ruled material support was not a legally viable war crime but prosecutors argued the conviction should stand because Mr Hicks agreed not to appeal as part of the plea deal, an argument that has now been rejected by the US Court of Military Commission Review….

Stephen Kenny, Mr Hick's lawyer in Australia, said the decision confirmed his client's innocence.

"Well it means David Hicks' conviction has been set aside and he's been declared an innocent man so it confirms what we knew all along," he said.

"David Hicks was innocent and that has formally been recorded by the military commission itself."….

BACKGROUND

Law Council of Australia:

David Hicks, an Australian citizen, was ‘captured' in Afghanistan in December 2001. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was detained by the US Military on the basis that he was an enemy combatant.

                         

After almost three years in isolated detention, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy and was committed to face trial before a Military Commission established pursuant to Presidential Order. However, before the trial could proceed, the US Supreme Court found that the military commission system was unlawful.

David Hicks was once more left in detention without charge and with no prospect of release in the short or long term.

In late 2006, the military commission system was re-established by an Act of the United States Congress and in early 2007 David Hicks was again charged and committed to face trial before a newly constituted Commission.

In March 2007, over five years after his initial capture, David Hicks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

In April 2007, Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine months of his suspended seven-year sentence.

Hicks was released on 29 December 2007, but was placed under a 12 month control order.

The Law Council took a close interest in David Hicks' case and played a prominent role in bringing his plight to the attention of Australian public. Throughout his period of detention, the Law Council was highly critical of:

* The inability of Hicks to effectively challenge the legality of his detention;

*  Hicks' treatment in detention;

* The flawed and inherently unjust rules of procedure and evidence of the military commissions;

* The lack of any legal foundation for the charges initially pursued against Hicks;

* The retrospective nature of the charge eventually pursued against Hicks;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' detention without charge;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' trial before a military commission;

* The terms of Hicks' plea agreement; and 

* The unnecessary imposition of a control order on Hicks upon his release.

Over this period the Law Council issued more than twenty press releases, public letters to Parliament and reports, including three reports from the Law Council's Independent Observer at Hicks' trial. These materials are available below.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott: 'out of touch', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'

Five days before the September 2013 federal election which saw him become Australia’s 28^th prime minister, Anthony John ‘Tony’ Abbott’s chief personal attributes (according to Essential Research polling at the time) were ‘hard working’ and ‘intelligent’.

Seventeen months later, he is primarily seen as 'out of touch with ordinary people', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'.

For over half those polled he remains ‘hardworking’, but is also viewed as ‘superficial’ and ‘intolerant’.

The percentage of poll respondents who consider Tony Abbott as ‘intelligent’ has dropped from 63 per cent prior to his becoming prime minister down to 50 per cent at the beginning of this week.

Tony Abbott, when compared with Bill Shorten, is considered by more respondents to be ‘erratic’, ‘out of touch with ordinary people’, ‘arrogant’, ‘narrow minded’, ‘intolerant’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘superficial’.

Bill Shorten, when compared with Tony Abbott, is regarded by more respondents to be someone who is ‘intelligent’, ‘hardworking, ‘understands the problems facing Australia’, and ‘a capable leader’.

'Someone else' still has more support than Tony Abbott as being the best leader of the Liberal Party - as does Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop at 24 per cent and 21 per cent respectively.

This poll indicates that if an election had been held on Tuesday 2 February 2015 Labor would have taken back federal government by roughly the same percentage as the Coalition won it in 2013.

Essential Report* of 3 January 2015:

* This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online from the 30th January 2015 to 2nd February and is based on 1,019 respondents.    

Yet another policy Abbott & Co didn't think through

The Sydney Morning Herald 21 November 2014:

A central pillar of the Abbott government's fledgling environmental plans - the $300-million Green Army - has been hobbled by a High Court ruling.

In June the High Court ruled that the Commonwealth did not have power under the Constitution to fund the school chaplaincy program through direct funding as proposed. 

The case has meant the types of projects approved for the Green Army must now be of a national focus and "directed towards meeting Australia's relevant international obligations" or "conserving matters of national environmental significance".

The Coalition marketed the Green Army as delivering "local conservation outcomes" and first-round projects approved on guidelines set before court ruling had a strong local theme, including weed and pest control in Nillumbik, removing weeds in the Dandenongs, and revegetation and fencing in the Macedon Ranges.

The chaplaincy ruling may also mean some of the 196 Green Army projects approved under the first round of the scheme may not survive a High Court challenge.

The Green Army scheme was a key Coalition election promise at the 2010 and 2013 elections and involves young people aged between 17 and 24 paid an allowance to do up to 30 hours a week of environmental work.

About 2500 participants across 250 projects are expected in the first year, climbing to 1500 projects and 15,000 participants a year by 2018-19. 

The scheme is to be funded directly by the Commonwealth government.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt described the first-round projects as "community-led projects that support practical, grassroots environment and conservation activities".

But new guidelines released this month for second-round Green Army projects include a new clause, stating that projects "must be directed towards meeting Australia's relevant international obligations or, alternatively, directed towards protecting and conserving matters of national environmental significance".

One project co-ordinator hoping to be involved in the Green Army scheme - who did not want to be identified - said their project would no longer meet the guidelines because it came under state heritage regulations and was not of national and international significance. 

"The scheme has been gutted for community projects," they said. 

A spokeswoman for Mr Hunt declined to directly comment on the High Court decision……

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-hobbles-green-army-for-local-community-projects-20141123-11r4di.html

Tony Abbott's Blue Screen Of Death

Australian Attorney-General Brandis gets a Dorothy-Dixer on the subject of the recent High Court ruling concerning national school chaplaincy program

Blissfully ignoring the fact that the High Court of Australia found that the Commonwealth funding the National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program was of no material benefit to public school students, the Abbott Government looks for the best angle going forward in the coming public debate:

Attorney-General George Brandis Media Release 19 June 2014

TRANSCRIPT – QUESTION TIME, SENATE

Subjects: High Court Decision – Williams v The Commonwealth (No 2)

E&OE

SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate on the decision of the High Court in the Williams (No 2) matter.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This morning the High Court gave judgement in the Williams and The Commonwealth (No 2).  The effect of the Court’s decision is that the Commonwealth’s National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program is invalid.  The basis of the decision is that the School Chaplaincy is invalid because the Court found it is not supported by any legislative head of power in the Constitution.  In particular, the Court decided that the program was not a benefit to students within the meaning of section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution and was therefore not supported either by that or by any other constitutional head of power.  It is important to note that in arriving at that conclusion, the Court did not deal with the merits of the program, merely that the question of whether it fell within a particularly constitutional definition.

SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate what implications the decision may have for any other Commonwealth Government programs?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL:  The Court did not deal with any other Commonwealth programs. It did not consider the broader question of whether Division 3B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act was a valid law.  It merely decided that insofar as that Act purported to validate the School Chaplaincy Program, it was ineffective because the School Chaplaincy Program was not supported by any constitutional head of power.  The Court did not decide that any other Commonwealth program was invalid.  I noticed a statement by the Shadow Minister for Finance, Mr Bourke, issued a short while ago in which he suggests a range of Commonwealth programs are put at risk as a result of the Court’s decision this morning.  That statement by Mr Bourke is erroneous and ignorant.

SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate what assurances the Government can provide to recipients who have already received funds under the School Chaplaincy Program?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, Senator Seselja, I can.  It follows from the Court’s judgement that Commonwealth payments to persons under the School Chaplaincy Program were invalidly made. The effect of the decision is that these program payments, totalling over $150 million, are now debts owed to the Commonwealth under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.  However, under that Act, the Minister for Finance has the power to approve a waiver of debt of an amount owing to the Commonwealth which totally extinguishes that debt.  I’m advised by my Friend, Senator Cormann, that he has today agreed to waive the program payments made to date.  That decision will provide certainty to funding recipients that these debts will not be recovered in consequence of that decision.

BACKGROUND

First High Court judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012) and second judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (19 June 2014).

I'd laugh if the Abbott-Hockey ploy didn't presume Australian voters were idiots

To date the Abbott Government has run up at least an additional $29.3 billion dollars in national debt over the last 135 days.

This means as of today the nation owes in excess of $189,422.8 billion in gross public debt.

Having mapped out this level of rising debt some months ago, the Abbott Government abolished the legislated debt ceiling late last year.

On 22 January the Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey made this nonsense announcement:

"I direct that the maximum total face value of stock and securities that may be on issue is $500 billion"

The directive apparently expires rather appropriately on April Fool’s Day 2024, as at the rate it is currently borrowing this $500 billion debt cap (now unsupported in law and therefore meaningless) will be exceeded by Abbott, Hockey and Co in under three years.

After all, Abbott still hasn’t said how the nation will fund his proposed personal $250 million VIP aircraft and other little prime ministerial luxuries or compensate for the reduced revenue his industry level taxation cuts will produce before the next federal election in 2016.

Where is Australian Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey sourcing his financial advice?

By the end of October 2013 the Abbott Government was borrowing an est. $265 million per day and it continues to borrow at a frenetic pace. 

At the same time it is moving away from the budget measures outlined in its September 2013 costing table and has blown out the 2013 budget deficit by an estimated $10 billion.

ABC News 9 November 2013:

The Budget Monitor from Deloitte Access Economics..... has raised concerns about whether the Government will take unpopular decisions to improve the budget outcome and return to surplus within the promised 2016/17 timeframe.

The assessment has forecast a budget deficit of $39.7 billion for this financial year, almost $10 billion higher than the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) predicted.

The PEFO estimated a deficit of $30 billion, but since then the new Coalition Government has scrapped some tax windfalls and handed $9 billion to the Reserve Bank.

Deloitte's Chris Richardson says those decisions have significantly contributed to the size of the deficit.

"That is a cost to the budget, it's all fallen this year. It's a lot of dollars," he said.

"You might eventually see those dollars head back to the Government but it is a really rotten budget deficit this year."

The new Nationals Member for Page needs to act quickly if he is to get a decent slice of the regional funding pie

This was the new Nationals Member for Page Kevin Hogan in the local media:

The Northern Star

24 September 2013:

A CHANGE of government has brought uncertainty to the upgrading of the Northern Rivers Livestock Exchange.

The Labor campaign promise of $3.5m to go towards the renovation of the Casino Saleyards has fallen by the wayside with the Coalition now in power.

Newly elected Nationals MP for Page, Kevin Hogan, said all was not lost.

"We didn't make that promise but I really like the idea, as I see the value of contributing to the upgrade of the saleyards," he said.

While Labor's Regional Development fund has been disbanded, Mr Hogan said it would be replaced with the Coalition's Stronger Region fund.

"As soon as their door is open I will have the application on their desk," he said.

25 September 2013:

However, Member for Page Kevin Hogan is good at multitasking, yesterday packing up his old office while being interviewed for this story simultaneously.

The poll will be officially declared today and he will get the keys to his office.

For his first 100 days of office he has set himself some big goals.....

He planned to roll out funding for the Pacific Hwy upgrade and work toward fulfilling his campaign promises to provide more than $4 million to Ballina District Hospital as well as making installation of CCTV in Casino a priority....

It would appear that Kevin Hogan is very optimistic about his chances of securing funding under the Stronger Regions Fund and is patiently waiting for it to open its doors before acting.

Because under Stronger Regions what will be created are finite area funding pools from a budget of $400 million (with no funds distributed before 2015-16), Mr. Hogan actually needs to be vigourously lobbying now if he is to deliver a local funding arrangement capable of delivering the $3.5 million required for the Casino Regional Livestock Exchange upgrade as well as the many other infrastructure needs of local councils and communities.

Until then, the only money coming into the Page electorate for regional development will be that former Labor Government funding which Treasurer Hockey has been unable to claw back.

As for Ballina Hospital, well that is a costed $5 million Coalition election promise due to be delivered in this financial year. Again Hogan needs to get his skates on and see the hospital funding signed off on as soon as possible because there is a clear intention in the Coalition costings that this financial year it will only be spending $35 million in new funding nation-wide.

When it comes to the $3.6 billion Pacific Highway upgrade funding which Kevin Hogan promised to release and the promised $2.1 billion in extra funding – one has to wonder where it is all coming from.

Coalition election promise costings make no mention of this $5.7 billion and, it appears that for the next three years the Abbott Government will only be spending the same total amount outlined in the former Labor Government’s upgrade plan. In other words no more than $2.5 billion in total.

One also has to wonder where Mr. Hogan’s promise to obtain $463,969 in funding for 55 CCTV cameras in Casino CBD is leading, for the Abbott Government’s Safer Streets Program will not be releasing any funding until the 2014-15 financial year and how much money it holds in hand will likely rely on how much is received by government under Proceeds of Crime legislation.