First up, please note the threads below this one dealing with state politics in South Australia and New South Wales.
The BludgerTrack poll aggregate continues to inch in the Coalition’s direction with the addition of the Essential Research poll, the only one published this week. Whereas Labor finished 2018 with a lead of 54.4-45.6, the latest result has it at 53.1-46.9, which is a 0.4% shift compared with a week ago. However, this only makes one seat’s difference on the seat projection, with a projected gain for the Coalition in New South Wales. No new results for the leadership ratings this week.
Full results are available through the link below. There is a bit of bug here that often stops the state breakdowns from loading when you click on the tabs – I will get around to fixing this one day, but for the time being, it should work if you do a hard refresh.
Grandfathering the rort is just wrong.
These people say they are ‘self-funded’. Yet if they are attracting cash from the govt (without paying tax) which is generally called a pension.
Actual pensioners have to fight for an extra cent. Energy supplement anyone? The govt can take that away from people who live week-to-week, many in relative poverty. Yet you want to grandfather a rort?
Imagine what $5B a year could do for all the ordinary pensioners. Or providing proper aged-care.
The inequity of this system is simply staggering.
You should have watched on Friday these people were not ‘vulnerable’ in any sense. They are wealthy people with very large savings, claiming to not be bludging off the Government while at the same time demanding they be allowed to continue bludging off the Government.
But I agree this is a very small first step.
The real problem is the juxtaposition with ordinary decent lifters in Australia. You take a nurse that worked her / his body into the ground for very little in the way of wages. They are now on one of the worst / lowest pensions in the OECD and probably getting fake / fraudulent robodebt letters. It puts both the really nasty Howard devastation of the social safety net and dividend imputation into the same trickle down / flood up focus.
I got to say if the poor rose up and started using guillotines on the likes we saw in Tim Wilson’s partisan election campaign stunt on Friday the sympathy would still be with the poor.
Goll @ #841 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 11:57 am
Morrison will need more than a couple of jiggers to get through next week. It will be Australian politics in the gutter.
I’m alright mate I’ll have a waterfront home. Hope the rest of you can swim!
The way things are going, my place outside Armidale at 1100 m ASL may well be a waterfront home!
C@tmomma @ #910 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:16 pm
When have I ever attacked another bludger with nasty, foul abuse ?
Yes beautifully framed.
WWP: “It was a rort costing 5 billion dollars effectively paying a pension to filthy rich extraordinarily well off people.”
Do you have evidence that most beneficiaries of the policy were filthy rich and extraordinarily well off?
(I’m not being argumentative, just asking.)
jenauthor @ #914 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:18 pm
It should be a simple exercise in winning the debate.
TPOF @ #895 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 11:58 am
TPOF
Sorry but knowing those negotiating does not cut it – of course those doing the negotiating were on board – I do not doubt it. BUT for something like this you need something close to full on bipartisan agreement, and even then your PHON equivalents could derail the process.
The point is that Malaysian PM did NOT make a public statement along with Gillard and the guy who halfheartedly signed a non binding agreement was not senior or at least not prominent. That is why the High Court ruled as it did – because the commitment from Malaysia was not strong. I suggest you read the judgement. From memory at least one of the judges would have been swayed by demonstration of Malaysian commitment – even a binding contract may have done it.
I think that you are ignoring the very real internal tensions within the LNP on the issue and this is now very obvious. If you recall, the clause in the legislation that CAUSED the high court to chuck the deal out was the one inserted by the Victorian (mostly) moderate Liberals – Petro Giorgiou was the leader I recall but others like Mal Washer were also involved. So it was not just a simple matter for the Libs to chuck out the policy over which there had been much aggro in the very recent past. Perhaps they should have but if you remember it was threats of crossing floor by their moderate wing that led to the inclusion of the clause which basically limited the power of the immigration minister to act without checks. These internal tensions are now apparent for us all to see, but they were there too back when that legislation was passed.
Now I assume you object to me raising mahtu\ir in the 2012 context – possibly a fair point but you have to accept the fact that the negotiations were made with the now known to be appallingly corrupt Najik Razak.
Perhaps this is OTT BUT did you and your cronies offer some assistance to the dear leader that was er um personal? I think perhaps if nothing else those singing the praises of the wunnerful Malaysian deal should go silent just in case the deal was not all hunky dory, given the known behaviour of the PM.
Rex Douglas @ #904 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:18 pm
That’s not the point I was making and you know it! To specifically concentrate on what YOU want to, ‘nasty, foul abuse’ and NOT acknowledge that your sniping and sneering comments about Bill Shorten, Labor, or the people who support Labor and Bill Shorten here, don’t have a similarly corrosive effect on the blog, is disingenuous to say the least, very politely.
More discussion and debate, Rex Douglas! Less drive-by sniping and sneering.
C@tmomma: “Meher Baba seems to think that the Labor Party are being deficient and negligent in not going the hyper aggressive Tony Abbott route in Opposition. That by not doing so they will lose the chance to gain government because of that.”
To quote Mr Justice Hayne: “Nope.”
I’m just suggesting that when a government is divided and prone to infighting, the “Opposition 101” strategy is to do everything you can to keep the focus on them and away from yourself. I actually don’t think Abbott as Opposition Leader was generally so much “hyper-aggressive” as he was repetitive and consistent.
Anyway, what he certainly didn’t do was to run with a whole lot of potentially controversial policy positions which drew attention towards him and away from Gillard-Rudd.
Mehr – some days ago we were given calculations of how much money needs to be invested to receive THAT much of a tax deduction& refund (e.g. $20k/$30k)
It was well over $1m in shares. That is over and above the family home and anything else that is not ‘counted’ as taxable income.
steve davis @ #899 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:16 pm
Nice to see the tories leaving themselves open to attack though.
The story writes itself – Refused 26 times to hold the RC – now refusing to take the required action. Refusing to allow the Parliament to sit and do the job its elected and is paid to do.
Rex Douglas @ #907 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:21 pm
Says the guy who hasn’t debated and won an argument, based upon thorough debate on PB since Jesus was in short pants! 😆
Its not a tax when you pay no tax in the first place.
dtt
It was a pretty flimsy effort from Bowen.
meher baba @ #910 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:25 pm
What Tony Abbott DID do, and which Labor are unable to sink to the depths to do, is lie through his teeth to mislead the electorate.
“No cuts to Health. No cuts to Education. No cuts to the ABC or SBS.”
Is that the sort of tactic you would prefer Labor adopt?
Yeah I didn’t save a link but the stats were very clear where it was going. There was a little bit of the old ‘taxable income’ as a proxy for wealth that makes them look a lot less wealthy, but then you find out about the 150k non taxed pension and a portfolio of shares driving the dividend credits. And anecdotally listen to some of the stories from Friday. A lot of these guys are sitting on very large asset pools that they do not consider they have any obligation to realize, they don’t consider them savings, where they clearly are meant to be considered savings.
And of course you have pensioners who are exempted. So if you are wealthy enough to have no pension you are in no way financially vulnerable. If we did pensions right, you wouldn’t be vulnerable even on the pension without dividend credits, but we know as a country for the last 40 years we always chose to punish those who are really vulnerable and give extra candy to the top end of town. It was called trickle down, it was really flood up, and the down bit didn’t really work.
Labor just needs to resurrect the “protection racket” line against the Coalition regarding the banks. This is a winner for Labor.
poroti:
[‘Is Pyneocchio using the HoJo Eleventy (pat. pending) calculator ?’]
I don’t really know other than to suggest that if the Gillard Government didn’t have the support for a bill, it’s my understanding that it was passed to the keeper. What can be said is that 561 bills were passed, a number of them being significant in policy terms.
And even when you do it isn’t a credit of tax you’ve paid, it was tax that Woolies or NAB or whoever paid. They are separate legal entities and separate legal entities are supposed to both pay tax on their taxable incomes. This whole looking through the corporate legal entity to have imaginary double taxation is very dishonest.
C@tmomma @ #922 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:23 pm
This isn’t a Labor blog.
C@tmomma: “What Tony Abbott DID do, and which Labor are unable to sink to the depths to do, is lie through his teeth to mislead the electorate. ‘No cuts to Health. No cuts to Education. No cuts to the ABC or SBS.’ Is that the sort of tactic you would prefer Labor adopt?”
Abbott’s misrepresentation went beyond that. He effectively claimed that the Libs could remove the deficit without doing anything that would adversely affect anyone.
Of course I don’t want Labor to do anything like that.
As I said earlier, it strikes me that the Government is struggling internally in a range of areas: climate change/energy policy, the status of women, social conservatism vs libertarianism. Why wouldn’t Labor focus its attack on the Government on these areas of weakness and division, rather than to deliberately take the debate into difficult areas such as taxation policy and no win areas such as the situation of boat people on Nauru and Manus?
Meher Baba
A couple of things-
John Menadue argues it was not the turnbacks, per se, that “stopped the boats”-
http://johnmenadue.com/john-menadue-the-best-of-2018-scott-morrison-did-not-stop-the-boats/
Whether true or not I still think forcible turn backs demean us as a country. Think of the the contrast in commentary here between this and Trump’s “wall”.
Similarly there is a dissonance here between the perceived undeserving millionaires in SMSFs and the beneficiaries of defined benefit super. No consciousness of the market value of same has been evident. That said, I am unaware of any limitation of swapping investments WITHIN a SMSF. I think it would be wise for those affected to simply divest themselves of these shares.
Labor did nothing about the banks in their 6 years on power, so I’m not sure how effective any attack on the govt will ever be.
As I recall it was senator X, Wilkie and Windsor who made all the running.
C@tmomma @ #926 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:26 pm
Stop the sniping of posters will you !
DTT
Perhaps this is OTT BUT did you and your cronies offer some assistance to the dear leader that was er um personal? I think perhaps if nothing else those singing the praises of the wunnerful Malaysian deal should go silent just in case the deal was not all hunky dory, given the known behaviour of the PM.
____________________________________
This is why people just call your theories out as batshit crazy. And why I don’t usually even read your posts, let alone respond to them.
I thought that when you challenged another poster to actually address your ‘argument’ I would go back and contribute something from knowledge, not prejudiced theory.
I won’t waste any more time and energy reading your nonsense or replying to it than I do to Infowars and Drudge.
I’m just suggesting that when a government is divided and prone to infighting, the “Opposition 101” strategy is to do everything you can to keep the focus on them and away from yourself. I actually don’t think Abbott as Opposition Leader was generally so much “hyper-aggressive” as he was repetitive and consistent.
This is not strictly correct either.
Since the Coalition elected the 2nd best Conservative in the Village, Scott Morrison, they have pulled themselves together and gotten behind him in a relatively unified fashion. The Moderates have been put back in their place and they have trained their attacks on Labor. So I think that the time has well and truly passed for Labor to focus on this. A passing comment here and there when a skirmish in the Coalition breaks out, but other than that, pointless at this point in time.
You have to remember that Tony Abbott spent most of his time as Opposition Leader fomenting the chaos in Labor’s ranks with his stunts and manipulation of the Standing Orders and POOs. So did Julie Bishop and Kevin Rudd, hand-in-glove. And it was a successful strategy, as Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper became the focus of national attention for extended periods of time. There’s just not the time left before the election for Labor to go down that path. Anyway, it would seem as false as Barry O’Sullivan in a woman’s dress for them to do it now. 🙂
Bob @ #937 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:35 pm
Labor can be pro-active by committing to establishing a peoples’ bank. It’s good politics and good policy.
lizzie
says:
Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 12:23 pm
I remarked before Christmas that the latest deterioration came with the advent of nath, who seems very spiteful. (Maybe I didn’t post that. I often delete my posts that might cause trouble. )
__________________________________
What rubbish! I have hardly ever posted anything spiteful and have more often than not been on the end of spiteful comments. In fact most of the recent arguments and nastiness has had nothing to do with me at all.
Working with the banks to let them effectively write their own terms of reference, wasn’t Morrison’s wisest choice, even after 26 very unwise votes against the whole exercise.
Going back a long time there Bob, and perhaps with such clear historic vision you might be able to turn your mind to how hard Labor had to work to get their priorities through.
Rex Douglas @ #921 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:33 pm
THAT is Misdirection 101.
Address the substantive point! You can’t debate your way out of a paper bag on this blog! So you resort to one-liner drive-by sniping and sneering. Stop it, or you’ll go blind! 😆
Some political history:
[‘While there has never been a successful vote of no confidence or censure of a Government in the House of Representatives, on eight occasions Governments have either resigned or advised a dissolution following their defeat on other questions:
Deakin Ministry, 21 April 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 29:38 in committee on an amendment moved by the Opposition to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill.
Watson Ministry, 12 August 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 34:36 on an amendment to its motion that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which it inherited from the previous Government and carried through the committee (detail) stage, be recommitted for consideration of certain clauses and a schedule.
Reid Ministry, 30 June 1905—The Government resigned following the House agreeing 42:25 to an amendment to the Address in Reply (proposing to add the words ‘but are of the opinion that practical measures should be proceeded with’).
Deakin Ministry, 10 November 1908—The Government resigned following its defeat 13:49 on an amendment to the motion to alter the hour of next meeting.
Fisher Ministry, 27 May 1909—The Government resigned following defeat 30:39 on a motion moved by a private Member to adjourn debate on the Address in Reply.
Bruce–Page Ministry, 10 September 1929—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after an amendment had been agreed to in committee to the Maritime Industries Bill (35:34). The amendment was to the effect that proclamation of the Act would not be earlier than its submission to the people either at a referendum or a general election.
Scullin Ministry, 25 November 1931—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after the question ‘That the House do now adjourn’ was agreed to 37:32, against the wishes of the Government.
Fadden Ministry, 3 October 1941—The Government resigned when, during the Budget debate in committee of supply, an opposition amendment to the effect that the first item in the estimates be reduced by a nominal sum (£1) was agreed to 36:33.’]
Source: House of Representatives Practice, 6th Ed.
Stop the sniping of posters will you !
I will follow your lead, Rex Douglas. 🙂
Just block me C@tmomma for goodness sakes.
Rex Douglas @ #924 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 12:27 pm
I read somewhere (but cannot be certain) that the FA department (where Bowen was) had legal advice that suggested the HC would rule it out. He was not an enthusiast.
This thread is fascinating re the Bezos National inquirer saga. Although he doesn’t go into the relationship connections Bezos girlfriend connections which is also very interesting.
_____
Will Bunch
Will Bunch
@Will_Bunch
·
14h
Read the thread, and come back Sunday afternoon for my Phila. Inquirer and Daily News column that will tie it all together
Quote Tweet
Will Bunch
@Will_Bunch
1. It came out of left field, but last night’s bombshell developments seem to have exposed a tangled web involving the Saudis, MBS, their allies, Team Trump, global hacking rings, Khashoggi, the Washington Post and Bezos that could take everything down. Follow the chain here:
Show this thread
Bob @ #924 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:35 pm
Not exactly true. Labor, in government, did a LOT about Payday Lenders and the Financial Advice Industry. These were the most pressing issues in front of them at the time.
You might also recall that a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis was preoccupying them at that time. 🙂
Lovey: I have a great deal of respect for Menadue, but I can’t really buy the line that it all comes down to Rudd’s statement (which he later denied he ever made) that people arriving from 2013 would never be settled in Australia.
Boats continued to set off from Indonesia after the 2013 election. The turnbacks were then applied, and the boats stopped, and – other than a couple of long-range arrivals from Sri Lanka – they haven’t returned. IMO, the turnbacks were clearly a game changer.
For those interested. The thread is on this Twitter feed.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Will_Bunch/status/1094210547573235718
I notove that no one seems interested in the Yellow Vest protests.
How many think it is OK for guys to lose their hands/eyes.
We should be opposing the use of grenades against protesters because if we do not scream they will arrive here eventually – probably used against union picket lines.
Rex Douglas:
[‘This isn’t a Labor blog.’]
It isn’t! I don’t, then, understand what I’m doing here.
meher baba says:
Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 1:16 pm
TPOF: “How is a defined benefit pension relevant to Labor’s proposals?”
The Turnbull Government’s decision – supported by Labor – to put a cap of $1.6m on the tax free status of accumulated funds but no cap on the tax free status of defined benefit pensions was based on a principle of grandparenting. That is, because people living on defined benefit pensions generally have no way of earning additional income or otherwise favourably adjusting their financial circumstances.
Arguably, the same situation applies to retired people whose financial well-being depends in part or whole on the receipt of these imputation payments.
__________________________________
For the vast bulk of people on a defined benefit pension, including myself and everyone on a defined benefit pension that I know, the value as determined by the super fund and reported to the ATO is below $1.6 million. In determining any future pension funds I can access (via SMSF or a super fund) the total value (including defined benefits value) must not exceed $1.6 million.
I have no idea about people who have defined benefits worth over $1.6 million but these would almost certainly be limited to public sector senior executives and private sector senior executives. I agree that it is near impossible to divest oneself of a defined benefit pension and I assume that this small group of people would have to divest themselves of any accumulation pension funds if their defined benefit value takes them over the TBAR.
As for the comparison with imputation credits, with the greatest respect that is crap. People can sell their shares at any time. I can divest all my shareholdings when the market opens tomorrow. A dumb idea, sure, but shares are the exact opposite of a defined benefit pension which is totally personal and lifelong.
As for their financial well-being, as Observer pointed out time and again, investing in shares because of dividends and unearned (and unjustified) claw-back of tax paid by companies is a risk and all investing is, by definition, risky.
The real criminality, though, is to make earnings of pension phase investments tax free. That was a Howard special that will one day have to be wound back if we are to fund the ordinary services of government without increasing tax hikes on those wage and salary earners with many other financial burdens to carry.
meher baba @ #951 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:45 pm
I was skeptical of the turnback process when announced but from the very little reported they seem to be effective.
Therefore why the need of offshore internments at all ?
We should increase patrols that are capable of turnbacks and just bring to the mainland any asylum seekers who slip the net for processing and re-settle them in a third country.
C@tmomma: “Since the Coalition elected the 2nd best Conservative in the Village, Scott Morrison, they have pulled themselves together and gotten behind him in a relatively unified fashion. ”
That is apart from Julia Banks, Kelly O’D, Ann Sudamalis, and many former members in electorates such as Wentworth, Warringah, etc., etc. Not to mention Turnbull himself. And the issues driving them away are, as I’ve stated several times now: climate change, the treatment of women, and social conservatism vs libertarianism.
Opposition to tax increases is one of the very few policy areas on which the “liberals” and conservatives in the Coalition reflexively agree. So the current focus of the political debate on tax issues is helping unite the two wings of the Liberal Party.
It’s all wrong IMO, but I think I’ve posted quite enough on the matter.
Mavis Smith @ #941 Sunday, February 10th, 2019 – 1:49 pm
Actually, based solely on how over-represented they are here when compared to their numbers in the electorate, I have come to the conclusion that this is primarily a Green blog with a few Labor dissenters.
Sometimes this blog resembles a comic.
A different perspective on the Superannuation Guarantee and the need to raise it.
Productivity Commission finds super a bad deal. And yes, it comes out of wages:
http://www.petermartin.com.au/2019/01/productivity-commission-finds-super-bad.html
Grattan Institute: We’ve had enough. 9.5% super is just fine
http://www.petermartin.com.au/2018/11/weve-had-enough-95-super-is-just-fine.html
Report in full – Money in retirement: more than enough / by John Daley and Brendan Coates: https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/
Just fact checking on the Malaysia solution, it was all agreed – indeed it was a swap, Rohinggas and others languishing in Malaysia for boat arrivals being held on Xmas Island, on a ratio of 5 to 1.
Humanitarian intake of genuine refugees balanced off against queue jumpers – the first plane to remove a group to Malaysia was warming its engines on Xmas Is airport.
And off to the HIgh Court for an injunction, cheered in equal part by the Abbott Opposition and the Greens.
Christopher Pyne admits that all those in offshore detention require urgent medial attention that they have been denied while detained on Manus or Nuaru …
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-10/all-refugees-on-manus-nauru-qualify-medical-transfer-coalition/10797592
What a disgrace 🙁
That seems a fair assessment.