Kevin Rudd: Australia's real Robin Hood?

While an Australian actor (Russell Crowe) may play the character of Robin Hood in the new Hollywood film, back in his homeland, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appears to have taken a liking to to the character.  However, this Prime Minister possesses other significant qualities not present in the original Robin Hood.  Robin Rudd is also the master of "spin", that is, misusing the English language to convince the more ignorant that his policy is for the greater good.  

 

The Labor leader and his government have decided to impose a new "super profits" tax on mining companies, which according to the Prime Minister, will pay for State infrastructure funds, a 2% decrease in the company tax rate and a 3% increase in Superannuation for all Australians.  In response, 9 billion dollars was wiped of the Australian sharemarket to our Prime Ministers announcement.  Stop.  This Super tax has already resulted in the abandoning of two mining projects in Western Australia, it has wiped off 9 billion dollars of our money. It will cause a loss in jobs, sure employees will get more superannuation, but they are likely to suffer pay-cuts if they are lucky enough to keep their job.  Businesses that service the mining industry will suffer.  This is a mere ploy by the government, as is its new cigarette tax, to grab as much of our money, to fund its failed policies. Make no mistake, this government must go.

Mr Rudd once described climate change as the "greatest moral challenge of our time", and that he would make Australia a global leader in climate change.  His Government then rushed out a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) which lacked both clarity and details.  I blogged previously about Penny Wong's refusal to answer the simple question, "by how much will electricity prices increase post 2013?" The Labor government threatened the then Liberals Leader Malcolm Turnbull with a double dissolution if his party did not agree.  Apparently, climate change is no longer the greatest moral challenge of our time, the Government is rolling out ill-thought through policies to ensure Robin Rudd remains Prime Minister.

 

Previously, in response to the turmoil surrounding the global financial crisis, a $42 billion "rescue pack" was rushed.  The author concedes that this made perfect sense and is indeed grateful for the cash received (which did not get spent in ways which would stimulate the Australian economy). Nevertheless, fiscal stimulus to aid an ailing economy was the right thing to do.  Once again, the Labor government rushed through policies such as the insulation schemes and the "Building Education Revolution" (BER).  The BER suffered shocking cost blowouts and in at least one case the BER attempted to knock down perfectly functional school gym when what the school required was a new library.  The insulation scheme was plagued by the death of a number of insulation installers. As it turns out, dangerous foil insulation was installed creating health hazards thus forcing the government to spend more tax payer money to fix the problem it created.

Peter Garrett was at that time described by Robin Rudd as a "first-class minister", yet Mr Garrett was subsequently demoted from this senior position.  Julia Gillard vehemently denied any cost blow-outs prior to the whistle blowing of several school principals. Penny Wong staunchly refused to give more details about the government's proposed CPRS.  Australians deserve to hear the truth, while this Labor Government may fool the more ignorant, most Australians are beginning to see through Labor's veil. The lastest Newspoll affirms this; with voter satisfaction with Robin Rudd falling to 39%.  Two weeks ago it stood at 50%.

Last month, Labor purported to act immediately (again) with a new Health reform scheme whereby States were to surrender 30% of their GST entitlements to the Federal Government.  Once again, Kevin Rudd was at his menacing best; threatening a "referendum" if States did not agree to his plan.  The Labor government just has not learned; rushed policies are failed policies, and indeed, the Health Reform was not achieved in its entirety as Western Australia did not give in to Mr Rudd's threats.  As an astute user of the English language, one cannot but wonder why Mr Rudd does not understand the idiom: More haste, less speed. In fact, Mr Rudd threw more taxpayer money at the States in an attempt to get their co-operation. As Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia described it, "twenty pieces of silver won't work with Western Australia".  This government cannot be trusted to deliver the policies vital to the Australian people, nor can it be trusted with our hard earned money.

Now the Government wishes to impose a new super tax on resources companies. Coupled with an increasing cash rate (interest rates), this spells trouble for the Australian public.  Yet one must wonder why Robin Rudd would even consider an imposition of a new tax. Obviously, the extra funds are required to fund its failed insulation schemes, building education revolutions and all the extra funds used to "suck" States into agreeing to his Health reform.  The Liberals have called for fiscal stimulus to be wound down or even stopped, but this Robin Hood is stubborn, despite increasing inflation rates and interest rates, this government has refused to do what is right for the Australian people.  Instead, it has attempted to rush through further policies in a last grasp election-year attempt to sway voters. The government has attempted to "spin-doctor" its policies as being "for the greater good" or even attempting to avoid responsibility for its failed policies. In the age of globalisation, Australian industries must compete with developing countries such as China or India in the provision of professional and manufacturing services.  These new policies will drive jobs overseas, as we have seen with the Gorgon Project in Australia's North West Shelf.  The greater good will be served with a new government, one that is not run by the Australian Labor Party.  This is the end of the tether; this government must go.

 

 

 

Kevin Rudd's great big deceit

On International Women's Day, Tony Abbott announced a new Coalition policy pertaining to paid parental leave scheme. This scheme would provide mothers with six months of paid maternity leave at their normal salaries up to $150,000. The scheme appears to have been concocted without much support from big businesses or from the Liberal party itself. On the face, the policy does not appear to conform to traditional conservative and liberal policy. 

However, debate about the paid maternity leave policy can be seen as a success from Labor's point of view. Lest we forget, two years ago Kevin Rudd described climate change as the "greatest moral challenge" of our time. The Government has attempted to divert attention away from the failures of Copenhagen and its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) by announcing new policies on health reforms and paid maternity leave.

Kevin Rudd's popularity with the Australian public has fallen significantly since the days of Kevin '07, with the Prime Minister becoming better known for being "all hat and no cowboy". Kevin Rudd has failed to deliver upon numerous election promises including the CPRS and hospital reforms. Peter Garrett was "demoted" after the national insulation scheme debacle which further dented the public perception of the government. Finally, KRudd has failed to handle contemporary issues such as rising national debt levels arising from "excessive" economic stimulus and asylum seekers.

In fact, in a recent Q&A program on ABC, when questioned on his handling of the health system Mr Rudd blamed the delay on his predecessors for "ripp[ing] a billion dollars out of the public hospital system". In response, one member of the audience remarked that:

"Didn't you say when you were going to reform the health system that the buck would stop with you, yet you've made two references to the previous government's decisions, and I note you didn't reference the previous government's surplus they left you in terms of the economic crisis. But you said the buck would stop with you, so will it, or are we going to keep hearing that the previous government did this, the previous government did that?"

Mr Rudd was not able to respond coherently to that question. Similarly, Climate Change minister Penny Wong's interview on ABC's Lateline could be described as nothing less than "excruciating". The Federal Minister refused to answer questions put to her by Tony Jones regarding the increased electricity costs to the Australian public which would result through the implementation of the CPRS. The questions put forward include:

TONY JONES: The Prime Minister has spelled out that in the first two years of your emissions trading scheme, electricity prices would rise by 7 and then by 12 per cent in the second year; a total of 19 per cent by 2013. What happens after 2013?

TONY JONES: I’ll just interrupt there because you put out some of the modelling. There’s no modelling, is there, that we’ve seen or that I’ve seen beyond 2013?

TONY JONES: Yes, understood. That’s the difference as you paint it. But let me ask you this: you say that the big question is about the two schemes, but actually one of the big questions is about the costs. So what happens after 2013? What does Treasury model tell you? For example, if your targets go from 5 to 10 per cent, does that mean automatically and exponentially you get a doubling in the cost of electricity from 20 per cent increases to 40 per cent increases?

TONY JONES: Yes, but the open question is: how much will you have to increase? You must have Treasury modelling which tells you what a 10 per cent reduction would be, a 15 per cent reduction, a 20 per cent, or even a 25 per cent reduction in emissions would cost in terms of cost-of-living increases. Do you have that modelling?

TONY JONES: That’s not the only policy question. The policy question that is on a lot of people’s minds at the moment is what this is going to cost. And so I’m asking you: do you have Treasury modelling that tells you what the additional costs will be to electricity and cost of living if your targets increase from 5 to 10 per cent, from 10 to 15, or even to 25 per cent, as you’ve canvassed, if the rest of the world moves?

TONY JONES: Alright, but before the voters go to an election with an emissions trading scheme, potentially, as a virtual referendum on how to deal with climate change - before the voters go to election, are they entitled to know what your modelling is telling you about what different targets would do to the cost of electricity and the cost of living?

TONY JONES: OK, but what happens? Is there an exponential change to the cost of electricity? Does it double from a 20 per cent increase with a 5 per cent reduction in emissions trading to a 40 per cent increase in electricity costs with a 10 per cent and so on, up to 80 per cent with 20 per cent reductions? Does it work like that, or is it somehow different? What does the modelling tell you?

TONY JONES: OK. But before people vote for this in an election, as they are likely to do this year, do you commit to giving the complete Treasury modelling to the public so they can see what happens at the different targets that you’ve proposed?

TONY JONES: Will you release the full Treasury modelling about the potential cost to electricity and cost of living with the different targets?

TONY JONES: But they won’t know prior to the election, based on what you’ve just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets.

TONY JONES: Yes, but you’ve already told the rest of the world that you’re prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You’ve also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don’t the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be?

TONY JONES: Well, no, we don’t have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you’re prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.

TONY JONES: If that is the issue, let me ask you this: is it now standard practice to pass confidential departmental briefing documents to the press, or to sections of the press, I should say, as part of a media strategy to undermine the Opposition’s position?

TONY JONES: No, no, I’m not talking about honesty. I’m talking about the way in which this information was released. And isn’t it precisely the sort of thing that infuriated you about the previous government: the use of confidential departmental material to undermine the Opposition’s case?

What we have is a Government who is deceitful and cannot deliver on its promises to our nation. Mr Rudd has purported to paint himself as a contemporary leader, one who is in touch with the younger generation of voters. He has failed, and is now attempting to divert the public's attention away from his failings by announcing new policies.

Rudd versus Asylum Seekers, Asylum Seekers Win

The average Australian earning over $35,000 a year is taxed at a rate of 30 to 45% by the Australian Tax Office each year. This money is used to fund, amongst other things, the Christmas Island detention centre to process asylum-seekers seeking refuge in Australia. It was estimated in 2004 that each detainee was costing the Australian people up to $725 per day. More recently, it has been revealed that the Christmas Island detention facilities had cost the Federal Government $45 million  more than it had budgeted for this year. More taxpayer money is being pumped into the centre to boost its capacity.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously stated that the Christmas Island detention facility was bad policy and that it was a "white elephant". He is now being forced to pump more taxpayer money, money which the taxpayers have had to work hard to earn, to support a bunch of asylum seekers who have not followed the proper policies laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In fact, the recent standoff by the Oceanic Viking and the subsequent granting of asylum to two Sri Lankans demonstrates Mr Rudd's inability to defend the sovereignty of Australia.

One of the most fundamental rights of a Sovereign State since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) is the right exercise supreme authority over all subjects within its territory, including the power to make and enforce its laws. While the issue of asylum seekers is a global issue, Mr Rudd's lack of a coherent policy to tackle this problem has exaggerated the issue for Australia. As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott aptly described it:

"[This] shows that Mr Rudd was blackmailed ... effectively blackmailed, into giving people what they wanted ... they held that ship for about a month and that shouldn't have happened. It seems every day another boat (carrying asylum seekers) arrives". 

Furthermore, Mr Rudd's policy of redirecting the boats to Indonesia creates two problems. Indonesia is apparently justified in processing these asylum seekers because of the monetary assistance Australia has provided to fund its detention centres. This doesn't solve any problems, it is merely passing on the issue to Indonesia. It also strains relations Indo-Australian relations. Secondly, as Mr Abbott rightly points out, it sends the wrong message to asylum seekers that "if you get to Indonesia you also get to Australia, because of the deal that Mr Rudd did with the people on the Oceanic Viking".

Kevin Rudd is "pretty smart"

Here is some good advice for all history students, memorise your American history and in particular, George Washington's strategy to defend New York from the British in the American War for Independence. The easier alternative is to simply visit wikipedia before having breakfast with Bill Clinton. These skills will hold you in good stead in the off-chance that you meet Mr Clinton. Kevin Rudd's ability to describe the American War for Independence in "excruciating detail" has led Mr Clinton to describe the Australian Prime Minister as being "pretty smart" and "one of the most well-informed, well-read, intelligent leaders in the world today." 

We in Australia have no such history, no wars fought for independence,  no tea parties where we proclaim, "no taxation without representation!" Australian's enjoy their tea too much to throw it into the sea, we do however, have a well publicised apology  made to the indigenous people of Australia (made by KRudd). But Mr Rudd is the Australian Prime Minister, not the US President, yet he was described by Mr Clinton as an Australian who "knows more about America than they know about Australia". 

Perhaps a contextual interpretation should be afforded for Mr Clinton's statements; that is, Mr Rudd is well-informed and well-read on American history. The critical question, however, is how will Mr Rudd's knowledge of American history benefit Australia? It won't, but it will promote Mr Rudd's image in the US after relations were strained when a sensitive phone call between Mr Rudd and the then US President George W Bush was leaked to the media where Mr Bush purportedly said, "whats the G20?".

Tony Abbott (a Rhodes Scholar and arguably more intelligent than Mr Rudd) cannot claim to have received the Clinton stamp of approval as one of the world's most intelligent and well-read politicians. Mr Abbott gave credit where credit was due yesterday and agreed that Rudd was indeed a smart person. He said,

"No one's ever criticised Kevin Rudd for being unintelligent. Dull? Yes. At times incapable of expressing himself clearly? Yes. But no one's ever said that he's not smart."

This is unlike the current Labor federal government, who only recognises and promotes their achievements, but does not give credit to achievements by other political parties. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard's recent statements suggesting that the Howard-Costello governments played no part in the development of Australian economic policy of the last decade are the best examples of our government's lack of humility.

Public servants going above and beyond their duties

Adair Turner, Baron of Ecchinswell, an academic and chair of the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority (regulator) has made the headlines again, this time propounding that banks should use their profits to strengthen their finances as opposed to paying out lavish bonuses or stock dividends. These comments are very noble coming from someone who was once part of the banking profession himself. Amongst other thing, he has proposed that taxes be increased on financial transactions and increase that the capital requirements of banks, thus shrinking the financial industry in the UK. He said:

"[Banks] need to be willing, like the regulator, to recognize that there are some profitable activities so unlikely to have a social benefit, direct or indirect, that they should voluntarily walk away from them.”

Mr Turner has also proposed a Tobin tax; a tax intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. It is difficult to understand why Mr Turner has suggested that banks should not profit from activities that have no social benefit. A fellow student suggested to me that this meant that pharmaceutical companies should not make abortion pills and should voluntarily walk away from these activities. Mr Turner's suggestions go against the most fundamental reasons of incorporation; limited liability and the enterprise and risk taking it encourages. 

Of course there is little chance that tax or proposals will receive any international support.  The power of banks was well demonstrated by the limited restrictions placed on recent bailout funds as the banks regarded themselves as being "too big to fail". So this begs the question as to why Mr Turner made these comments; the NY Times reported that Mr Turner was probably more interested in the reaction and "outroar" that these comments may incite. Mr Turner's comments make little sense and have even been described as "stupid", but this is precisely what Mr Turner anticipated when he made these comments. He is trying to venture into the area of politics.


This was also seen by Ken Henry, Australia's Treasury Secretary, who has been described as an "ambassador" for the Rudd government following comments defending the government's decision to impose economic stimulus. More recently, he has reject calls from the Opposition for these stimulus measures to be withdrawn, notwithstanding that these stimulus measures would impose dangerous debt burdens on future generations and deficits for at least six years. However, is it really a public servant's best interest to make these sorts of comments in public?

Public servants like Ken Henry or Adair Turner venture into dangerous territory when they assume the roles of politicians and espouse ideas or opinions such as describing recent stimulus packages as "the most effective use of fiscal policy we've seen in our lifetimes". Former Treasurer Peter Costello lay the blame back on the Rudd government for bringing Ken Henry into the political arena. He wrote that the government had attempted to "capture some economic shine from Henry" and therefore was inevitable that they would face political questioning. Very aptly, he stated that

 "Public servants are there to advise; politicians are there to make decisions."

Perhaps both Ken Henry and Adair Turner could learn from Mr Costello's wise advice. Stick to your own jobs of providing advice to politicians, and refrain from taking their ideas or recommendations to the public arena. Leave the difficult decisions to the politicians.