Go get 'em Barry

Someone said recently that the only people you hear say that the ABC is not bias are lefties. True points. Check this little number where Barry Cassidy interviews Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner. Who'd have thought that the Government has turned a net surplus into a $57billion deficit in just 18 months...Barry clearly forgot so kicked off with a nice little puff question...

BARRIE CASSIDY, PRESENTER: Back to domestic politics and our studio guest is Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner.

Morning, welcome.

LINDSAY TANNER, FINANCE MINISTER: Good morning Barrie.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The Times editorial this morning refers to Gordon Brown's reshuffle as a suicide pact. How would describe Kevin Rudd's?

LINDSAY TANNER: Oh I think Kevin's is just changing the line-up amongst a range of talented people caused by the resignation of one minister Barrie. There's really no comparison between the two circumstances.

In the UK you've got the economy in much greater trouble, a Government that's 12 years old and, of course, a systematic crisis coming from the MPs' entitlements issues. So I wouldn't compare the two.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Now John Faulkner goes into defence. As Finance Minister do you welcome the fact that a hard nut with almost an obsession in the Senate Estimates for defence matters and defence expenditure in particular, do you welcome that such an operator is now running defence?

LINDSAY TANNER: I do welcome that. We've got a very big agenda for savings and efficiency improvements in defence and John will be ideally placed to push that through.

That's a key element in finding the money to invest for the future in new generation submarines, fighters, all of those things that are going to be crucial to Australia's longer term defence needs.

So John is the ideal person; a tough nut who'll push that agenda through.

BARRIE CASSIDY: So with Joel Fitzgibbon out and with John Faulkner coming in, is that a net benefit to the Government?

LINDSAY TANNER: Oh look I wouldn't necessarily say that because I think that would be unfair to Joel. Joel was very committed to this. He's crafted this strategy. He was the driving force behind the White Paper.

So every politician is different. Everybody has got different strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think you should underplay Joel's achievements. It's very unfortunate the way that he's departed but he's actually been a really major player in developing the Government's approach on these things.

And what John Faulkner will be doing is in a sense implementing and batting through those very ambitious objectives.

BARRIE CASSIDY: What did he do wrong?

LINDSAY TANNER: Oh failed to dot his Is and cross his Ts basically. I think that what you've got to do is make sure as a minister that you are absolutely rigourous on all of these detailed things in regard to your own personal circumstances and unfortunately he missed that in a couple of incidences and the end result is he's no longer a minister. It's a lesson for all of us.

Obvious question is 'so are you saying that Fitzgibbon really did nothing wrong? Do you condone lying to journalists and only revealing information when you are found out?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Well the Budget was handed down just under four weeks ago. Already there is more optimism around because of that positive growth figure. Surely then that optimism by itself will lead to a more positive outcome than those predicted in the Budget?

Do you regret going into such debt given that China is holding up the economy, not the stimulus payments?

LINDSAY TANNER: Well certainly the confidence that I think has been engendered by not only developments around the world but also the Government's willingness to step up to the plate and to invest in infrastructure, to stimulate the economy, has been a factor in those positive numbers, but we're by no means out of the woods yet. We've got a very, very long, hard haul in front of us.

And I note today that the Liberal Party's credibility on debt and deficit has been completely blown away by Joe Hockey who's admitted that if they were elected they would continue with the stimulus package the Government has put in place.

I welcome that, but I note that they now have the same policy as the Government on these things.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But if we go back to the growth figure, and you accept the general point that when you get a confidence boost then generally that translates into more activity?

LINDSAY TANNER: Look generally that will have an impact, but we live in a very fragile economic environment, both nationally and internationally, so I wouldn't want to overstate that.

It's a very positive thing. It's very welcome for Australia that we've got a quarter of positive growth, but it's a pretty anaemic quarter. It's certainly better than negative growth as we had in the previous quarter. We wouldn't want to overstate it.

We've got a big challenge in front of us. We still expect unemployment to rise over the course of the next six or 12 months and we don't want to get...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But to what extent though? You were predicting 8.5 per cent. Chris Richardson from Access Economics is now saying that 7.5 per cent might be the peak.

LINDSAY TANNER: Well we're not revising our estimates. And Chris has something of a habit of calling the extremes. He's always out there in either direction. He's a highly respected economist but that doesn't necessarily mean he's right.

We'll be a bit more cautious in making that kind of call. We have revisions of the estimates for these things that normally are put forward in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook papers towards the latter part of the year. I'd expect that's what we'll do as just part of the normal routine.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Well given that Australia is in better shape in terms of both growth figures and debt when compared with other OECD countries, could it be argued the Government didn't need to spend quite as much, to build up quite as much debt; that in a sense it would have been better to take a slightly harder hit now and make it easier on yourself down the track? Good question, let's see if he get's an answer.

LINDSAY TANNER: I don't believe so Barrie. And in fact it's, for those who are advocating that position I think they are drawing conclusions from this one quarter's figures that really are difficult to substantiate.

Australia's endured a lost decade of productivity growth. Australia's endured a lost decade of infrastructure investment. Australia's endured a lost decade of skills development. Australia's endured a lost decade of savings growth. Australia has endured a lost decade of export development.

What Ross Garnaut has called "the great complacency" has finished. It's now over and now the hard work begins.

And on everybody's lips in the economic debate now should be one word - productivity. That's what we're committed to doing. That's why 70 per cent of our stimulus packages are about investing in infrastructure, investing in skills, ensuring that we can return to a high productivity economy.

That's what the broadband proposals are about. That's what new port, rail and road infrastructure proposals are about. That's got to be the objective for our economy, and we don't back away from those investments because that's what'll drive the prosperity for Australia's future.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Well you say the hard work begins. You told "The Fin Review" in an interview that the country could not continue living beyond its needs and must brace for tougher times. Are you talking to your colleagues there or to the country?

Er perhaps you can explain how pink bats and $900 random payments will build infrastructure and reverse this so called 'lost decade' during which apprentiships doubled.

LINDSAY TANNER: (Laughs) Well everybody. I think everybody has to go through an adjustment process. It's well under way.

You can see it with state governments Barrie. We've had a decade or so of comfort; a decade when the money's been rolling in from China and other Asian nations, when every time governments have turned around there's been a huge pile of extra revenue there they can draw on. They've been able to have surplus budgets and do lots of nice things for their electors.

Well that circumstance is over, it's gone. We've now got normality where tough decisions are made every year, all the time. Hard choices have to be made. That's the environment we're now in. That's the environment the States are in. That's the environment Australia is in.

And in that environment we have got to invest in productivity because we've had a very ordinary performance in this country for the past five, six, seven years on productivity and that's really where the long term game is for Australia.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But if the good times are over, the hard times are now upon us, what does that mean to the average Australian? What will it mean to their daily lives?

Yes and there is one level of government which banked the rivers of cash, paid down debt and is now bailing out the State Labor Governments that failed - the Australian Government of Howard and Costello.

LINDSAY TANNER: Well I don't think I can project that kind of detail from where we sit now. It just means that the kind of largesse that you've seen, for example, in some of John Howard's infamous election campaign commitments in 2004, 2007. You're not going to see much of that in the foreseeable future.

We've got to get the Budget back into surplus...

BARRIE CASSIDY: You mean in terms of middle class welfare and some of those handouts?

LINDSAY TANNER: Oh look there's all kinds of different things - government grants, there's a whole range of things where the money has flowed freely in recent years because there's been lots of money around.

Well there is not going to be lots of money around now and that means that our Government, state governments and future governments they may or may not replace the existing governments are going to face tough choices.

Now that in some respects is an opportunity as well as a challenge because we have coasted in this country for the past decade on productivity. We have coasted. Because of the strength of this revenue surge, the Howard government was able to sit back and say, how good is this? All we have to do is hand out money, we don't have to do very much.

Well the Rudd Government is not going to coast. We aren't coasting. We are going to put our shoulders to the wheel to invest for that productivity for the future because that's the only sustainable long term source of economic growth.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Okay given that in your seat of Melbourne you constantly face a real contest with the Greens, how did you feel when The Greens won a State seat in the WA election, in a by-election; the first time The Greens had beaten Labor anywhere on primary votes?

LINDSAY TANNER: Obviously that added to the nervousness, but this is not a new threat for me. I wasn't that far off losing my seat to the Greens in 2001 and came within about 4.5 per cent of losing it to the Greens in 2007. So this is not a new threat.

There were local factors involved in the Fremantle by-election - the choice of candidate for the Labor Party, the fact the Liberals didn't stand a candidate, a by-election, certain local issues. All of those things magnified the performance of the Greens but nonetheless it is a real issue.

But ultimately I believe that Labor voters will understand the difference between shouting from the sidelines, being pure and shouting from a megaphone to the general population, versus actually getting in there and doing the tough things and in some cases making the compromises in order to achieve outcomes.

There's many areas of government that I would suggest to the people in my electorate we have done good things and that I've made a contribution. If there were a Green member for Melbourne they wouldn't be making a contribution to those good things. They'd be on the sidelines.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But as you said, it's 4.5 per cent. That's marginal. Climate change will be a big issue. Kevin Rudd has already put back the start up date by 12 months. That plays into their hands.

LINDSAY TANNER: Look I don't believe so because at the same time we also indicated a willingness to accept a 25 per cent reduction of emissions against the 2000 level at the Copenhagen conference.

And one point people have missed is that that's actually tougher than it looks because of course emissions now are higher than they were in 2000. So...

BARRIE CASSIDY: If you go to 25 per cent.

LINDSAY TANNER: Well that's right but even, whether it's the 5 to 15 per cent unilateral proposition, or whether it's the ultimate 25 per cent proposition, all those targets are tougher than they look because although they're measured against 2000 emissions, to put them into effect, the difference you're making is against 2009 emissions or 2010 emissions, which are significantly higher.

So we have got I think a balanced approach to climate change which does maximise Australia's commitment and which is broadly comparable with the European Union and with the Obama administration's position, but which at the same time minimises the economic disruption in the short term. And I'm happy to stand up for that in the public debate.

BARRIE CASSIDY: And what would give climate change an even sharper edge would be if you had a double dissolution election.

LINDSAY TANNER: Well the last thing I want to see Barrie is an election. I've said that consistently. We are in the middle of the fight of our lives on the Australian economy. Things are extremely delicate, extremely challenging. Confidence is very fragile. It's still very low compared with where it was 18 months or so ago. It has improved a bit. The quarter's growth figures were very positive. We've stabilised the financial system but there's an awful lot of stuff to be done.

Elections disrupt this. The last thing we want to see is an election come in the middle of that incredibly challenging fight. If it is forced upon us, so be it. But we're committed to getting our legislation through and to governing and to solving the problems we're presented with.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The unions, too, some of them anyway almost uniquely in Victoria have periodically thrown their support behind The Greens; the ETU (Electrical Trades Union) is one example. That too would add to the degree of difficulty in your seat, wouldn't it?

LINDSAY TANNER: To a degree but there was a fair amount of that in the last election and I still managed to hold my seat with some degree of comfort.

There's, I think it's very odd that unions would do that. I'm a former union person myself and I've been accustomed over the years when I was a union official to taking the rough with the smooth, because the key thing about having Labor governments is that in overall aggregate terms you produce good outcomes. You don't satisfy everybody on everything; you can't produce the ideal outcome every time you deal with an issue; but in overall terms you produce good outcomes for working people and on the ideals that Labor people support.

Now if you go off down a side track with the Greens then you marginalise yourself. You end up just there with the megaphone, shouting at the world but not achieving anything.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But given that they have done that in the past, how do you feel about Julia Gillard's approach at the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) Congress?

LINDSAY TANNER: Julia was expressing the Government's view and we've got a very difficult issue to deal with there, but we've got a report from Murray Wilcox which does set out a pathway forward...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But it was the Government's view with a bit of extra provocation, wasn't it?

LINDSAY TANNER: Oh look I don't necessarily that that that's a fair assessment Barrie. She was stating plainly the position the Government takes and pointing out that there have been some recent developments which make it pretty difficult for the Government to be retreating from a position that was set out prior to the election.

So I don't think there was anything provocative about it. It was simply plain speaking and one thing that I think people in the trade union movement do value irrespective of whether they agree or disagree is plain speaking is better than soft soaping.

BARRIE CASSIDY: And the building unions claim that they're separated out, that they're treated differently to everybody else. Is that something that they've earned over the years by their behaviour?

LINDSAY TANNER: It's not unknown in Australian industrial relations history for there to be special arrangements for particular sectors. We had a coal industry tribunal for many, many years for example.

Ultimately we've got to weigh up the Wilcox Report, the recommendations there about how to reform the arrangements that currently apply. We are committed to getting rid of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and replacing it with a specialist division of Fair Work Australia that deals particularly with the construction sector. The issue of precisely what powers and what approaches that may be involved there is one that's still under consideration based on the Wilcox Report and that's where we'll proceed.

And yeah we'll take input from the union movement, but not only them. And we'll ultimately make a decision that's in the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian people.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Thanks for your time this morning.

LINDSAY TANNER: Thank you very much, Barrie.

The 'b' word

This has to be the most absurd pinnacle of spin. Sadly it's indicative of the trouble we're in and the priorities of the Government:

From the Australian:

May 20, 2009

Article from: The Australian

Mr Rudd hates admitting the outcome of his budget plan

IN avoiding answering an obvious question, Kevin Rudd did not play a straight bat on ABC TV's Lateline on Monday night as much as build a brick wall across his crease. Six times interviewer Tony Jones asked the Prime Minister what public debt would reach in the context of the present crisis and five times Mr Rudd responded with a storm of spin. He wandered and waffled all around the issue, explaining debt is often expressed as a percentage of GDP, telling us tax revenues are down and infrastructure outlays up, adding that the debt would be no different under the Liberals. But when Jones finally wore Mr Rudd down all he would admit was that the projected debt would reach what he called "300". Everybody watching knew he meant $300 billion, but Mr Rudd could not bring himself to say it, lest we were all distracted by the debt and forgot everything he had just explained. It was an extraordinary exercise in obfuscation by Mr Rudd in his preferred persona as the nation's headmaster, intent on telling us what he has decided we need to know. Wayne Swan had tried the same tactic the morning after last week's budget when, at the end of a long interview on ABC radio, he was asked why he had not mentioned the deficit number in his speech. The Treasurer suddenly had nothing much to say beyond replying "57". Not "$57 billion", just "57".

This is stage one of the spin cycle the Government is using on the economy - sound authoritative and when anybody asks difficult questions take cover behind swags of statistics, while doing everything imaginable to avoiding stating the size of the deficit as anything other than an innocuous number. And if that does not work, ministers go to stage two, which involves invoking ostensibly independent experts. This approach was also on show the morning after the budget, when Mr Rudd was quizzed over optimistic assumptions in the forward estimates about the speed with which the nation's finances will return to surplus. Treasury thinks the economy will roar ahead in 2011, growing by 4.5per cent for two years and then 4per cent for the following four years. Instead of answering the question, Mr Rudd turned it into an attack on Malcolm Turnbull, who he said was criticising the credibility of Treasury officials. It was too cute by half - while the Reserve Bank is charged with setting interest rates independent of government, Treasury gives ministers advice. And when officials' ideas are integrated into policy the politicians own them. In questioning the Treasury figures, the Opposition Leader was not attacking the men and women who read the economic entrails, but the political use to which their work is put. The problem for politicians in frank and fearless advice is that it is exactly that - best estimates that carry no guarantee. When Treasury secretary Ken Henry defended the growth projections in the budget yesterday, he was standing up for the Government more than his own officials.

The possibility that he could be wrong on the economy obviously upsets Mr Rudd in a way that goes beyond the obvious importance of keeping the budget in surplus, employment high and inflation low. The Lateline lecture was almost embarrassing in the way it displayed Mr Rudd's desire to demonstrate he is across the issue and that there are no alternatives to his approach. But while Mr Rudd is determined to demonstrate he knows what is going on, few others are as confident. The Reserve Bank board's minutes from its May meeting, released yesterday, made a case for masterful inactivity because of inclusive evidence on the direction of the Australian, and world, economy. Yesterday, RBA boss Glenn Stevens went one very small step further, suggesting the world economy could start to grow towards the end of this year, but only slowly. The case for caution is obvious with the International Monetary Fund unconvinced that our economy will improve as fast as Treasury forecasts. According to IMF staff estimates, the Australian economy will struggle to reach its long-term growth figure of 3 per cent by 2014, making the budget forward estimates less optimistic than outlandish. But before Mr Rudd ticks the IMF off for attacking Treasury's independence, the international agency uses Australian numbers. The truth is that nobody, including Mr Rudd, knows what will happen to the world economy. For all of Mr Rudd's command of the detail, his Lateline performance combined soothsaying and spin.

China grows the economy, Labor grows the debt

This week's welcome news that Australia is not officially in recession has highlighted the Government's duplicitous relationship with the mining industry.

Labor willed it to end - they saw it as something that just fortuitously 'happened' and they were the ones, we were assured, that would lock in Australia's prosperity 'beyond the mining boom'.

But when it seemed like ending as the GFC stymied international demand, talk of locking in prosperity was predictably absent.

These results are off the back of China demand, not the Government's stimulus payments:

As China kept buying Australian iron ore in the March quarter, so-called "net exports" added a huge 2.2 percentage points to GDP. That's the biggest net export boost in half a century and some claim it's a statistical quirk.

But it means that, amid the biggest global downturn since the 1930s Depression, Australia has staved off a headline recession because of demand from the rest of the world. And it comes as a huge surprise.

What will their legacy be?

Remember the 80's? The years of reform that would go on to lock in years of growth?

We had Thatcher, Regan and Hawke.

Today we have Brown, Obama and Rudd.

No reform, plenty of debt. There legacy will be governments saddled with unimaginable levels of debt which will ensure the Government sector is once again a dead hand on the economy - but the provision of services will decline as servicing debts becomes increasingly unmanageable.

From our perspective in Australia, it looks like Treasurer Swan will go from this:

We are budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion in 2008‑09, 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.

To this:

Tonight I am announcing the biggest budget deficit in Australian history, with no prospect of recovery in the forward estimates.

Amazing stuff. Just for the record, you check out what the Treasurer was saying at this time last year:

He recognises that the global financial crisis is on its way, but is focussed on talking up inflation in the interest of scoring political points:

It is the responsible Budget our nation needs at this time of international turbulence, and high inflation at home.

Amazing stuff this in retrospect. Just 11 months have passed. It just goes to show how cheap words are:

And it is a surplus built on disciplined spending, with the lowest real increase in Government spending in nearly a decade; spending growth which is one quarter of the average of the previous four years.

Mr Speaker, we need a strong surplus to anchor a strong economy; to do our bit to ease inflationary pressures in the economy; to build a buffer against international turbulence; and so we can fund ongoing long term investment in the ports, roads, railways, hospitals, universities and vocational education we need, to deliver growth with low inflation into the future.

'We need a surplus to anchor and strong economy and buffer against international turbulance'. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Update: Looks like I'm not alone. Cracking article by John Roskam of the IPA:

The public has the impression that the stimulus measures are temporary and short term. But this is only half true. The economic effect of the measures may indeed be temporary, but they have long-term consequences. It will take years for the budget to return to surplus, and the increase in the size of government is as good as permanent, given the difficulty of cutting government spending.

The rhetoric of Obama, Brown, Rudd, and indeed everyone else preaching the mantra of stimulus packages, has been masterful. They haven't said "our solution to the gravest economic crisis since World War II is to make government bigger". Nor have they said "the reason we're in this mess is because government is too small". Instead they've talked about things like "targeted measures" and "one-off fiscal injections".

But no matter how it's phrased, the result is the same. Government will be bigger after the global financial crisis than it was before.

Labor memory lapses

UPDATE: Fitzgibbon fell on his sword this week. The line is being pushed that he didn't do anything wrong, he just failed to 'dot the i's and cross the t's'.

It took a long time, and the Government has very successfully spun this as being self imposed and about maintaining standards. Reality is, this was resisted to the very end by the Government.

DPM Julia Gillard was on Insiders today and Barry was doing a good job questioning her on the Jeol Fitzgibbon matter.

Gillard can be a slippery fish, as you may recall with her was she or wasn't she helping defend the Maritime Workers Union during the waterfront dispute of 1998. She claimed she wasn't, but then there was that footage of her hiding behind a tree (!) and handing out documnets on behalf of the Unions to waiting media.

Today she was nearly got caught out as she was called to defend the Defence Minister over what appears to be a sustained evasiveness:

Failed to decalre trips to 2 China on the Register of Members’ Interests at the time
Failed to recall taking the trips when asked directly at a press conference

According to Gillard, they were 'lapses'. Something here stinks, and Gillard might come to regret this interview.

My guess is Fitzgibbon will be asked to move on 'voluntarily' 'for the good of the Governement'. He'll resign, and say something about it being a distraction to the Government. Rudd is too vein to be seen to lose a Minister. It has become one of his unreal benchmarks - like keeping all his promises even when they cannot be afforded - on which he puts his own pride before the national interst.

Update: the transcript is now on the Insiders website. This is probably a textbook example of Labor refusing to answer the question asked:

BARRIE CASSIDY: But nevertheless, why is Joel Fitzgibbon still Minister for Defence?

JULIA GILLARD: Well Joel Fitzgibbon is there doing a major reform task for the Government in Defence. It's hard work and as we've seen, it's going to be some difficult days for the Government working with defence to get the kind of efficiencies we need in that organisation.

So we're working hard on that. Joel's working hard on that. Obviously, (only here does Gillard actually address the question and we get the script) it's been a difficult week for the Defence Minister. He made an error about his declarations of pecuniary interests. He's corrected that error. He apologised to me for it. He apologised to the Australian public for that error and I think that matter is at an end.

BARRIE CASSIDY: So because he's in the middle of important work, he's untouchable?

JULIA GILLARD: (repeat script - you are not getting anything out of me Barrie except the script) He made an error Barrie, he apologised for that error and I think that that matter really is at an end. Did he make a mistake? Yes, Joel made a mistake, he's acknowledged that, he's apologised for it.

BARRIE CASSIDY: He was asked a direct question: have you ever taken trips to China paid for by Helen Liu? A direct question, and he failed to fess up.

JULIA GILLARD: He obviously answered that question incorrectly. And...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But why? Did he choose to avoid the question, or had he forgotten that he'd taken these trips?

JULIA GILLARD: (Barrie, I know I haven't given you an answer, so I will repeat the script in the third person) Well, Joel answered the question incorrectly. During the course of the afternoon it became apparent to him he had answered it incorrectly. He looked at his pecuniary interest statements, it obviously became apparent to him he hadn't made proper declaration of these trips and he immediately corrected that situation.

Obviously, he contacted me and explained the situation to me. I said he needed to correct the public record immediately and he needed to apologise and to make sure that his declaration of pecuniary interest was up to date and all of those steps have been taken.

BARRIE CASSIDY: It still doesn't go, though, to the question of why he answered that question incorrectly, whether he did it quite deliberately.

And this is in the context of Helen Liu's name being all over the papers that morning. So he would have refreshed his memory about the relationship. She went on those trips with him to China. He's asked a direct question and he failed to fess up to the Australian public?

JULIA GILLARD: (Barrie I really am not going to move from script) Well, it's a lapse Barrie. Yes it is and it's an error that...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But a deliberate one?

JULIA GILLARD: (repeat script, use the words lapse of judgement again - this is a judgement issue, not an issue of integrity or possible corruption Barrie - let me just repeat the script) Well, you're making that assumption. I think it's a lapse. It's a lapse in judgment. Joel's acknowledged that. Something he should have recalled, something he should have made proper disclosure of at the time. But let's remember...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But it goes to his character as well, doesn't it?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, you're putting an interpretation on why he made that error that I'm not agreeing with Barrie. (Barrie, incase you haven't noticed, I'm setting myself up for repeating the script again)

BARRIE CASSIDY: So you're prepared to accept that he simply forgot?

JULIA GILLARD: Well I think it's just an innocent lapse which occurred. (yes lapse, we thought about what words to use, and lapse of judgement was agreed downplayed the significance of what has happened here) There we are several years back when Joel is not a minister, he's a shadow minister in Opposition. He's taken some travel. He should have declared it, obviously (it's obvious now that it is in the public, no so obvious when it was not declared, not put on the register, not spoken about when asked at the press conference) that didn't occur.

We then have the events that started off, and I think we should remind ourselves Barrie, started off with a front page story about a Defence investigation into the Minister, an alleged defence investigation into the minister. That's all being looked at now through a series of inquiries. Joel is responding to questions about that and is asked this question, and clearly he doesn't answer it correctly. (I'm just going to repeat lapse and judgement again Barrie) That was a lapse in memory, a lapse in judgment. He goes back, he works out he's made an error, and he corrects it.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But as I said before, given the context of this and given the fact it was all over the papers and he had time to refresh his memory it doesn't say a whole lot about his recollection?

JULIA GILLARD: I think it says he's made an error he's apologised for. (Bugger! Forgot to mention lapse and judgement)

Terrific deals

I don't know about you, but as a taxpayer I'm delighted at the prospect of going into debt to fund other people's holidays and unlimited supplies of cigarettes to people in prison.

During the 2007 election I thought the Liberal Party might have been pushing pushing it a bit far with some of the claims made about Labor along the lines of 'once they get in they'll just change it all'.

I was wrong.

Under the cover of darkness (the GFC) they have increased taxes, blown the budget, tried to start some sort of class war and driven the country into recession.

Steve Price from November 2007:

Holding a copy of the Melbourne Herald Sun with a front-page treatment about Kevin Rudd playing "me too" politics and copying the Coalition's election promises, I said to Garrett that it was turning into the "me too" election.

With a straight face he replied that that would not matter because "once we get in we'll just change it all".

I just looked at him, said nothing and walked off.

Two and a half more years of Anna

The breathtakingly cynical manipulation of the electorate has paid off and Anna has been elected Premier of Queensland overnight. After 11 years of inaction, little planning and excessive spending during the boom years leaving little to show for it Queenslanders have asked for more.

Predictably they were given the trite 'we have heard the message of the electorate' boiler plate from the Premier:

"There is a very strong message here for us and that is that many people who have voted Labor for the last couple of elections didn't ... and they didn't because they are disappointed with our performance in a number of key areas"

Bligh will now get on with the job of giving the people of Queensland lots more of the same inaction combined with spending and taxing.

Rudd saw it as an opportunity to push the class warfare line he has been angling for since January:

"Full marks to her - she was up against a cyclone, an oil slick, a conservative billionaire throwing millions at the Liberals and Nationals' campaign but she came through."

Governance really is terrific right now. The evidence of a systemic failure of governance in Queensland is astounding. Just ask this nurse who was attacked doing her job. Dr Patel's patients (the ones still with us) or anyone who wants to water their garden.

the PM's lack of authenticity

Janet Albrechtsen gets closer to the core of the fundamental hypocrisy of Rudd and Labor in a cracking piece last week.

She correctly points out that Labor had no response to the excellent article that Turnbull wrote in response to Rudd diatribe in the Montly.

She notes 'they were forced to resort to using Rein because they had no other comeback to Turnbull’s criticism of Rudd.'

But this is where it's really at:

The man who sold himself as a safe pair of economic hands prior to the 2007 election has now unmasked himself as just another old-fashioned class warrior - when it suits. The Prime Minister’s performance on Channel Seven’s Sunday Night program was the ultimate exercise in spin where he felt the pain of “you good people”—the Pacific Brands workers—and unloaded yet again on the “unrestrained greed” of corporate executives. He even uttered a swear word for effect. Presumably, he thinks this is how you enamour yourself to workers. But it’s all an illusion.

Rudd has more personas than Sybil, the girl with 13 different personalities portrayed by Sally Field in a 1976 film. At business functions, Rudd is the epitome of rationality about the role of business. Among workers, he says the relocation by Pacific Brands “absolutely stinks”. Rudd worked as a senior China consultant with KPMG from 1996 until 1998. Does he honestly expect us to believe that he would have told his KPMG clients not to run more cost effective manufacturing operations in China? Does he now tell the Chinese Government that he doesn’t want Australian firms to run manufacturing operations in China?

Rudd and his comrades in government are the very worst form of class warriors. They feel the pain of the underclass when it suits and then enjoy the fruits of the overclass. As Strewth reported on Monday, there was a fear of awkwardness when Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Industry Minister Kim Carr boarded a plane last week with Pacific Brand’s CEO, Sue Morphet.

Alas, the only awkwardness emerged when the workers’ pals in the Labor Government slid into their business-class seats for the arduous flight from Melbourne to Sydney while Morphet travelled in economy. Indeed, pass through that deliberately nondescript frosted glass door to Qantas’ exclusive Chairman’s Lounge any day of the week, where Labor MP’s waft around enjoying free food and drink far from the workers outside. It’s not free of course. Rudd’s friends, the workers, are paying for it.

Spare us, Prime Minister. The real lesson is this. If you are going to write the kind of dishonest and hypocritical claptrap as you did in The Monthly, you can expect to have people pointing out the intellectual and moral weaknesses in your arguments. And you have to understand this battle of ideas can get a bit willing. If you’re going to dish it out, you need to stand your ground when someone belts you back in an obvious weak spot. Glass jaws have no place in politics. And with due respect, PM, if you are going to start a fight like this, don’t hide behind your wife’s skirt when battle is joined.

Waking up to St Kevin and the rancid stench.

In the Sydney Morning Herald today Paul Sheean really drives home the folly of Rudd's all things to everyone stand for nothing but winning elections philosophy. He gives a preview to the 2010 election:

• Fiscal folly and gross economic mismanagement: 'Rudd is on course to become the next Gough Whitlam, but Whitlam without the wit.'
• A handy quote that will be played over and over during the campaign alongside some awful unemployment statistics: '"Any person's job loss through no fault of their own is a lost job too many when it comes to me. I'm the Prime Minister of the country, the buck stops with me." Not unlike the ALP's 'working familes have never been better off' quote from Howard.
  
• The Rancid Stench of Hypocrisy: In opposition, Rudd opposed the GST, which in retrospect has been a tremendous stabilising influence in the economy, thanks to John Howard. During the last election, Rudd campaigned as an "economic conservative". Upon winning office, and inheriting a $90 billion financial buffer from outgoing treasurer Peter Costello, he accused the previous government of creating a dangerous inflation threat. It was a fabrication.

Hear hear.

Gillard's homophobia

Labor has every right to take the gay community for granted - the opinion leaders are uncritically fawning.

Yesterday when Mr Pyne rose to interrupt Ms Gillard with a point of order during Question Time, the Education Minister laid into him. This is Gillard in Question Time on 23 February:

"I must admit that I did want to see the member for Warringah (Tony Abbott) making a comeback,'' she said.

"In a choice between macho and mincing, I would have gone for macho myself.''


Ms Gillard continued: "And obviously the Leader of the Opposition (Malcolm Turnbull), faced with the choice of a doberman or poodle, has gone for the poodle.

"Presumably he prefers Abba to Cold Chisel, because that is the kind of thing we see on display.''

The clear intimation from Gillard is that Pyne is gay and what better way to make that point by subtly reinforcing some negative gay stereotypes.

Gay men don't walk, they mince.

You can't be gay and macho.

Gay men, they love poodles because in the animal kingdom, they have the same status as gay men - they are weak, they get all dressed up and they don't really deserve to be taken seriously.

And if you like ABBA, you are most probably a mincing homosexual.

If you are Julia Gillard, and you are caught out - brush it off and claim it was spur of the moment stuff. And by the way, homophobia is 'humorous':

"In question time you've got to have your moments of humour and I think that that was a moment of humour,'' Ms Gillard said today.

Disgraceful.

Pork barrelling

“Fortunately for Australia, there is a mood for change in the community – a community tired of the old politics of vote buying and pork-barrelling,”
Treasurer Wayne Swan, March 2008

That's a relief. Didn't last long though. Today - Friday the 13 - the Senate passed the biggest pork barrelling package in Australian history. Nation building 2009 style is now comprised of insulating private homes, giving people some random cash (where did $950 come from?) and building netball courts in schools (long neglected by state Labor governments).

Turnbull put it best: 'You know what someone said to me just a little while ago, very wise point. He said, imagine if 60 years ago Ben Chifley and Bob Menzies had sent everyone a cheque for 50 pounds instead of building the Snowy Mountain scheme'.

No need to imagine. The reality is unfolding before us.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Kevin. Cracker.

Janet Albrechtsen nails it in this cracking piece in the Australian today.

She perfectly captures the essence of Rudd's appeal to the disengaged - how he stands for nothing and runs on populist, safe issues regardless of the long term good.

Breathtaking Hubris

Say what you like about Tony Abbott, he is what he says he is and he knows how to write.

Abbot really nails the folly, hypocrisy and inconsistency in Rudd's essay on 'the great neo-liberal experiment' in the Australian this weekend.

I am yet to see anyone so succinctly and forcefully put the argument. In the process he goes to the heart of what divides Labor and Liberal in Government.

The Global get out of jail free card

The Global Financial Crisis has been dubbed the GFC by our acronym obsessed Prime Minister. Let's call it what it is - the GOJFC - the Get Out of Jail Free Card. For a Government that was elected (warning - another meaningless term) to 'end the blame game' they seem to have quite a predilection of blaming just about everything on the GFC. Global in it's nature, the message from the Government is (to coin a phrase) uneqivocal. You can't pin this one on us:

• Budget deficits
  
• Rising unemployment
• Falling business confidence
  
• Failing industries
• Government largesse to highly unionised but structurally unsustainable industries
  

Oh yes, this is global in nature, we can't do anything about it and it certainly is not our fault. Keep watching this one - not bad news announcement or reckless spending measure is unaccompanied by copious mention of the GOJFC.

Balancing the budget 'over the economic cycle'

Rudd has taken to using this new, cynical and meaningless term as an alternative to sound economic management. It is straight from the New Labour textbook in the UK. Have a look how well it has worked over there.

As Chancellor Gordon Brown was spending big and running budget deficits during the boom times. But fear not, he was determined to balance the budget over the economic cycle - as this BBC article from 2004 points out.

But the great thing about meaningless spin replacing sound economics is that you can just change the length of the economic cycle - as Brown does the following year. In January 2008, before the global credit crisis, Brown looked very much like he had failed to meet his target and debt continued to rise sharply.

When the cycle did end, this is what happened.

The term really does go to the heart of what's wrong with the Rudd Government. Too clever by half, they use terms like 'balance the budget over the economic cycle' and 'temporary deficit' to give the impression of making hard decisions but actually just running a traditional tax and spend administration.

Finally, here is the Government's Finance Minister trying to add some weight to the meaningless and misleading term on Lateline in November last year:

LEIGH SALES: Kevin Rudd was asked in Peru today if he would be prepared to take the budget into deficit in response to the financial crisis and he said, "The clear philosophical position this Government has had since Opposition and since becoming Government is this: that we believe in maintaining a Government and budget surplus over the economic cycle. "What does he mean by economic cycle, what cycle?"

LINDSAY TANNER: Well, a cycle is affected by a variety of things and one of them, of course, which everybody is worried about is international forces. And so our position's pretty straightforward. We've got a projected surplus. It's a bit thinner than it was a few months ago because it's had a very large hole knocked in it by these international factors. But we've still got positive growth projected and we've still got ongoing modest budget surpluses projected.

LEIGH SALES: But the use of the word "cycle" implies some sort of a timeframe? Does he mean over the financial year? Does he mean the electoral cycle? What exactly is he talking about when he says "over the cycle"?

LINDSAY TANNER: It doesn't imply a specific cycle because economic cycles over time vary in the period of time which they relate to. So, all it is is a statement that there are wider economic forces out there that no government can control that can move the fiscal settings around very quickly. We've just seen that happen. We've seen budget surpluses that were projected around the $20 billion mark suddenly knocked down to single figures as a result of particular international forces that are part of an economic cycle. We don't know whether those forces are going to intensify or whether we've seen the worst of them. That's a factor that's clearly has the potential to have an impact on our fiscal settings. But based on our current projections, the best available advice we've got, we believe the budget will stay in surplus and we're committed to keeping it in surplus. But nobody can be certain about where those wider international factors are going to take the Australian economy. If they intensify, if they get a lot worse, then things will change.

Right...

new words but no leadership from the PM and the bagman made good

As many of us are worried about our jobs (like really worried, not theoretically worried as they were under WorkChoices), what do we get from the Government? Lots of noise, and some inspired and meaningless new words:

• temporary deficit
  
• ahead of the curve
• decisive action
• balanced over the cycle
  

This is what you get when a Labor Party hack from Queensland somehow becomes Treasurer. Let us not forget:

JOURNALIST:

(Inaudible) Swan, the Labor Party should look at this (inaudible) brown paper bag affair?

TREASURER:

Well you see, I am no expert on ALP rules and it wasn’t until Greg Rudd was forced to leave the Labor Party that I realised that any Labor member - any member, not a member of Parliament - apparently any Labor member who donates to another political party must be expelled. Let me say, I have no objection to Greg Rudd donating to the Liberal Party, I think it is a good thing and I don’t think he should be expelled, I think he should be entitled to donate to whoever he wants to donate, and certainly as a member of the Liberal Party I am never going to regard that as a crime. But when that came up apparently it transpired that there are Labor Party rules that say if you give to another political party you must be expelled and Kevin Rudd’s brother was therefore forced out of the Labor Party. Well, I ask this question: how did Wayne Swan give money to the Australian Democrats? And why isn’t the rule being enforced against Wayne Swan?