The Greens - the no credibility party?

[Rorschach]

Greens Caring election policy taxes credibility
July 18, 2013
Nicolle Flint

According to current Fairfax-Nielsen polling, the federal election will deliver a very close outcome. Given the significant role played by the Australian Greens in the recently deceased Gillard minority Labor government, their election policy announcements deserve careful scrutiny.

The Greens election policy Resourcing a Caring Society, released on Monday, proposes billions of dollars of new taxes but is vague as to how this money will be spent and the benefits Australians and the economy will receive in return.

Resourcing a Caring Society outlines how the Greens would raise an extra $42.7 billion of revenue - through new taxes - ''to be invested in our future''. This ''future'' involves increasing funding to higher education, the Newstart Allowance, sole-parent payments and including dental treatment under Medicare and clean energy investment. That's a lot of tax and a lot of spending... I'm not sure that most Australians can afford an extra tax burden or the passing on of costs.

To ascertain how much will be spent on each of these areas, however, you must refer to the separate Greens election platform Standing Up for What Matters. Here, the Greens propose to reverse Labor's $2.3 billion university funding cuts and provide an extra $1.5 billion in funding to the sector. They pledge $8.2 billion to increase Newstart and Youth Allowance by $50 a week and offer $1 billion to increase sole-parent payments by $90 per week. The document does not cost the dental plan, but clean energy investment will cost at least $12 billion. This total spend of $25 billion leaves $17.7 billion of new taxes unaccounted for from the total new tax take of $42.7 billion.

Resourcing a Caring Society does, however, outline how the Greens' new taxes will be raised. ''Improving'' the mining tax will extract an additional $21.8 billion from miners over three years, beginning in 2014. Increased mining industry taxes and charges will raise an additional $11.6 billion. The big banks will be levied $8.4 billion. Millionaires will provide an additional $500 million through increased tax on income.

To put it simply, the Greens will take a very large amount of money from businesses and those who work hard to earn taxable income, so that more Australians can feel ''cared'' for without doing terribly much - if anything - in return.

Aside from ''caring'', reversing funding cuts that are ''dumb'' and investing in ''our nation's future'' it is not clear what outcomes and returns the new taxes will achieve. For an investment of $42.7 billion, Australians - and particularly the companies the Greens intend to target - deserve a clearly articulated return.

Voters deserve to know what the impact of these new taxes will be on the targeted businesses and the people they employ.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian mining industry directly employs 276,000 people. The Minerals Council of Australia states the ''industry already pays more than $20 billion in taxes and royalties a year net of the carbon tax and the minerals resource rent tax. The industry's effective tax rate - the ratio of taxes and royalties paid as a proportion of net revenues - has remained high and relatively stable, averaging 41.6 per cent since 2001-02. Even net of state royalties, the average effective company tax rate for mining is above the average for all industries''.

These figures do not factor in the value of the mining and resources industry to the broader economy through indirect spending and employment. It is reasonable to assume the impact of an additional $33.4 billion of taxes on the sector would be catastrophic. It would come at a time when Australia's gas industry, for example, faces increasing pressure from the rapid expansion in United States gas production.

Former foreign minister Alexander Downer has recently warned the US may start coveting key Australian gas export markets. Meanwhile, largely thanks to environmentalists, Australian gas producers - particularly coal seam gas producers - remain stymied by layers of red and green tape. Nothing wrong with stopping coal seam gas producers considering their technology and the concerns for the environment

Like the miners, Australia's big banks are also big employers. According to the Australian Bankers' Association, the main retail banks employ 150,000 Australians who are paid $22.5 billion in wages per annum (a figure that is more than half their annual operating expenses). Clerical and administrative workers form the largest single section of the finance and insurance industry. These are the people whose jobs would be put in jeopardy.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's chief economist, Greg Evans, has warned that the bank tax will ''end up harming borrowers, customers and shareholders'', too.

Earlier this year mining entrepreneur Gina Rinehart stated that the miners were not ATMs from which limitless cash can or should be extracted. The same applies to the banks.

At a time when the federal budget is $19 billion in deficit, when unemployment is rising and the mining industry is experiencing a downturn, it is highly irresponsible for the Greens to propose substantial additional taxes that could risk jobs and company contributions to the national economy.

If the Greens policy was implemented, 426,000 mining industry and banking industry employees would be at risk of losing their jobs.

As Greg Evans states: ''If the Greens want to contribute to a sensible economic debate they should lose their fixation on high taxes and realise that encouraging economic growth leads to higher revenue and hence a greater capacity to deal with our most pressing social programs''.

This is a far better and more responsible way to resource a caring society.

Nicolle Flint is a PhD candidate at Flinders University who has previously worked for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. She is an Age columnist and a member of the Liberal Party.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/greens ... z2ZMfww6sE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

Rudd's resurgence to skittle Greens
July 21, 2013
Heath Aston
Political reporter

Barack Obama famously said ''we don't have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society'' when it comes to combating climate change.

If a meeting of the flat-earth society were to be held in Australia, it would best be scheduled after bingo at an RSL.

A poll released last week shows older Australians are much more likely to dismiss climate change as a fiction and if they don't are more likely to doubt the human contribution to it.

Younger people, aged 35 and under, are more willing to take responsibility for the pollution they create and more likely to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that we are treading a path to severe weather-related upheaval.

People vote in all sorts of ways unrelated to their age but the findings of the Climate Institute poll underlines the fact that young people naturally form the largest reservoir of potential support available to the Greens. Young inexperienced and immature... no wonder they want the voting age changed to 16.

In the last Fairfax-Nielsen poll before Julia Gillard was punted from the leadership, 19 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 said they would vote Green as well as 13 per cent of the 25-39 bracket. Just 4 per cent of the 55-and-overs would vote Green.

But something has changed since the resurrection of Kevin Rudd and it has not gone unnoticed by strategists.

The total vote for the Greens fell from 11 per cent to 9 per cent in a month. yay...

The major fall occurred in the 25-39 age bracket - down from 13 per cent to 10 per cent.

Labor believes the Generation X - and to a lesser extent Gen Y - votes that had been parked with the Greens have rushed back to Rudd. just how shallow are these people... really?

The latest poll confirms this, with a dramatic rise in 25- to 39-year-olds promising a vote to Labor - up from 25 per cent to a whopping 46 per cent. By comparison, Rudd added just 3 per cent more voters in the 55-and-above bracket for Labor.

Pollster John Stirton cites three reasons Rudd is pinching votes from his left.

A percentage of the Green vote can be classed as a protest at the major parties. The deep and unbudging unpopularity of Gillard steered some Labor votes to the Greens.

Rudd's reappearance has reshaped the coming federal election as a choice between two clear alternatives, himself and Tony Abbott.

In that way, the 2013 election has been compared to the 1993 poll, in which Australia chose between two distinct personalities and two very different agendas in then leaders Paul Keating and John Hewson.

Second, some of the more ideological Green voters have been turned off by the alliance with Labor during the tumultuous three years of the 43rd Parliament.

But perhaps the most important drag on the Greens' momentum - at a time when the climate debate should result in their vote increasing - is the absence of Bob Brown.

As is the case with the ''daggy dad'' schtick of Rudd, there was something about Bob.

Christine Milne, whose delivery can at times border on severe, has been unable to fill the void left by the departure of the charismatic Brown.

The upshot of this is that the formerly ''winnable'' last Senate seat targeted by the Greens and the so-called micro-parties, predominantly of the political right, looks less winnable as the federal election campaign draws closer.

For the Greens in NSW, this is a problem, as it could truncate the political career of up-and-comer Cate Faehrmann.

She gave up a seat in the state upper house to move to Canberra. At the time it was reported that she had done a Steven Bradbury to snatch a spot on the ticket ahead of the more experienced John Kaye, who had hung back in the expectation that the Aboriginal academic Larissa Behrendt would run.

The return of Rudd is making it look more like Faehrmann has been thrown a hospital pass.

Chris Johnson is on leave.
Ads by Google

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/rudds-res ... z2ZdawGsIJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cate who?????

[Rorschach]

Well nothing changes, and if there was ever any doubt what a bunch of lunatic LW Progressive Conspiranuts these people are... Milne and Bandt put that completely to rest this morning on the ABC.

Anti Liberal, anti Conservative, anti US, anti Abbott.... and the list goes on.

Milne's now talking about party reform... a good start would be dumping, Bandt, Hanson-Young, herself and most of the Green retarded morons in parliament.

[mantra]

Milne has already started reforming the party. The Greens need a younger leader and I only say this because she's turning into a Meg Lees by trying to keep the Coalition happy. That's a big mistake, but regardless of whether I agree with her or not - the Greens have remained stable in the polls give or take 1 or 2%.

Even if they get a few protest votes because of voter disillusionment with the major parties - that's not a bad thing.

Where do you think the Liberals would be in the polls without the Nationals?

[Rorschach]

Well they could always dump Milne and swap to another looney like any of the others mentioned previously or an anti-Semitic like Rhiannon or the completely immature Ludlam.

[IQS.RLOW]

The party of wackos for wackos by wackos.

They should have made the Greens party illegal due to mental health concerns for the party and its constituents.

[Rorschach]

Milne has already started reforming the party. The Greens need a younger leader and I only say this because she's turning into a Meg Lees by trying to keep the Coalition happy. That's a big mistake, but regardless of whether I agree with her or not - the Greens have remained stable in the polls give or take 1 or 2%.

Even if they get a few protest votes because of voter disillusionment with the major parties - that's not a bad thing.

Where do you think the Liberals would be in the polls without the Nationals?

1 or 2 percent is of the Green vote is 10 or 20 percent of their total vote. Not such a small swing in context.

If there were no Nationals the Libs vote would automatically be higher.

[Neferti]

Milne has already started reforming the party. The Greens need a younger leader and I only say this because she's turning into a Meg Lees by trying to keep the Coalition happy. That's a big mistake, but regardless of whether I agree with her or not - the Greens have remained stable in the polls give or take 1 or 2%.

Even if they get a few protest votes because of voter disillusionment with the major parties - that's not a bad thing.

Where do you think the Liberals would be in the polls without the Nationals?

1 or 2 percent is of the Green vote is 10 or 20 percent of their total vote. Not such a small swing in context.

If there were no Nationals the Libs vote would automatically be higher.

Exactly. You won't find the Nationals and Liberals competing with each other in any Electorate. The Coalition is a formal alliance of broadly centre-right parties, existing in various forms since 1923.

Also Australia has had twice as many conservative federal governments than leftard ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

[mantra]

If there were no Nationals the Libs vote would automatically be higher.

How do you figure that out? Since when have the Liberals independently given a stuff about people living outside of cities? Other small parties and independents would take their place and that doesn't automatically mean the Liberals would get their preferences.

1 or 2 percent is of the Green vote is 10 or 20 percent of their total vote. Not such a small swing in context.

The figures swing up and down. What might be a 10% loss one week is usually a 10% gain the following week.

The party of wackos for wackos by wackos.

They should have made the Greens party illegal due to mental health concerns for the party and its constituents.

If that was true and considering mental illness now inflicts at least 25% of the population - then the other 15% must be Coalition politicians and their supporters. Andrew Robb comes to mind. He's paved the way for psychotic cabinet ministers.

[Rorschach]

Andrew Robb had depression. His wife is bipolar. These are not uncommon afflictions in today's world. I'm sure if it was Bob Brown you wouldn't be so heartless and lacked so much compassion about it eh mantra... go the haters.
IMO that's a rather pathetic attitude you continually display.
There is no logic in stating that 15% of the population with depression are Liberal voters any more than what IQS said. What about Labor or the Democrats, or Nationals or....

How do I figure out the Libs vote will be up if there were no Nationals...? Common sense and political knowledge.