are howard's economic credentials so great or is he just lucky? (1 Viewer)

[hazaar]

lucky

 

[frog12986]

Another point that seems to have been lost in this question (as raised by the Treasurer) is the way in which the government has implemented structural and fiscal policies that have provided the stability and resilience needed to remain strong in the face of challenges such as:

- The Asian Economic Crisis

- A US Recession

- September 11 2001 Terrorist Attacks

- Iraq War

- Terrorist Attacks (Bali, London)

- Severe Drought

- Oil Issues

It's one thing to attribute every piece of success to a 'resources boom' however these challenges substatiate the point that managing an economy well is not a given, and the policies adopted have a significant impact upon what occurs...

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes on the back of the ARAB OIL CRISIS ....

ASIAN RESOURCES BOOM

I admit that I don't know anything about much of this economics crap, really. Although, I do think it's both alarmist, and brutally stupid to suggest that the ALP would somehow manage to run the countries 'economy' (in quotations to force the idea that I don't really know what I'm referring to) into the ground, and sadly, that seems to be what a lot of people are basing their vote on.

 

[ZabZu]

Over the past few days Rudd has said he supports most of the government's economic policies. However, Costello has mentioned the ALP has opposed almost all their reforms.

I find it disturbing that the ALP voted against many of the coalitions economic policies over the past decade such as an independent reserve bank and balanced budgets. I can understand why they voted against the GST and Industrial relations reforms but I dont know why the ALP refused to support the other policies.

 

[frog12986]

ASIAN RESOURCES BOOM

I admit that I don't know anything about much of this economics crap, really. Although, I do think it's both alarmist, and brutally stupid to suggest that the ALP would somehow manage to run the countries 'economy' (in quotations to force the idea that I don't really know what I'm referring to) into the ground, and sadly, that seems to be what a lot of people are basing their vote on.

Whilst what you say has some grounding, the point the government consistently makes is that the economic prosperity is not a given, and that with a proven ability to address the challenges of the Australian economy, in conjunction with the ALP's history of macroeconomic irresponsibility, they are better equipped to continue to take the country forward.

Rudd can say that he supports the fundamentals of the governments economic policy of the past 11 years, but as Zabzu stated, party lines have dictated the opposite. It was only yesterday that Julia Gillard stated that she would talk with
small business and look at 'exceptional circumstances' where unfair dismissal laws would not apply under an ALP govenment. Whilst in the same breath the three most prominent union figures (one 2007 ALP candidate) in the country have publicly denounced the laws and any 'exceptions'.
There are too many divisions on the front bench. Peter Garrett was quoted as saying on the 730 report in 1998 (as President of the Australian conservation Foundation) that environmental taxes were necessary, which again contradicts Rudd's stance and their statement that industry and workers would not suffer..

Already it appears that division in policy is beginning to shine through the gaps..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Although, clearly, the same divisions are apparent in the coalition. From memory, there were a few National members and a few Liberal backbenchers who were opposed to the IR reforms (and I'm sure GST, etc as well) as well. If that's the case, you can hardly use dissent as a major case against the ALP. Same goes for contradictions in trying to get elected, in that it's a problem for both sides. It's not a problem that I like at all, but Howard and co have made just as many, if not more prominent gaffes in the upcoming election as Rudd and co have.

Getting off track for a moment, I think that the ALP's case against the IR reforms is completely well founded as well (the personal factor), and it's something the the voters really have responded to. Really, have we seen any outrageous new economic prosperity as a result of these new IR laws that couldn't have been acheived otherwise? I do recall, if I take Howards word for it, that we've experienced a good economy over the ten years prior to these laws. Why bother to enact them if it's going to cost people so much? Economic responcilbility is one thing, but I wouldn't favour it over social responcibility in this case.

They're my...scattered thoughts on the matter.

 

[wagga]

Another point that seems to have been lost in this question (as raised by the Treasurer) is the way in which the government has implemented structural and fiscal policies that have provided the stability and resilience needed to remain strong in the face of challenges such as:

- The Asian Economic Crisis

- A US Recession

- September 11 2001 Terrorist Attacks

- Iraq War

- Terrorist Attacks (Bali, London)

- Severe Drought

- Oil Issues

Asian Economic Crisis - We didn't actually trade with South East Asia much at the time, pre resources boom, so therefore it had little impact on us

September 11 - Conversely, the resources boom had hit by this time, minimising our dependance on the USA

Iraq War - We have 1400 troops over there. Hardly going to impact us at all; Iraq is only a bit player in terms of oil exportation

Bali, London - Little trade with either of these nations; both were quite small relatively (I mean this in the nicest possible way, i still feel deeply sorry for anyone affected by it) and their overall effects were quite minimal

Drought - Look at the economies of the states affected most by the drought, and not riding on the resources boom, and tell me Howard has managed this well (NSW is very close to a recession, Victoria is stagnant)

Oil Issues - They affect every country, therefore it will not unfairly disadvantage us in regards to international competitiveness.

Really, Howard inherited an economy that had just come off the back of a recession. You have all seen the business cycle graph, after a recession, you get a boom, and in our case, helped no end by China's insatiable appetite for commodities, which we, of course, have in great abundance.

Keating's microeconomic reforms (e.g. decentralised wage fixation) also helped; and I believe Howard's major failing as an economic manager has been his failure to continue any meaningful microeconomic reform, despite of the huge surpluses we have been running which could easily be spent.

 

[frog12986]

Asian Economic Crisis - We didn't actually trade with South East Asia much at the time, pre resources boom, so therefore it had little impact on us

September 11 - Conversely, the resources boom had hit by this time, minimising our dependance on the USA

Iraq War - We have 1400 troops over there. Hardly going to impact us at all; Iraq is only a bit player in terms of oil exportation

Bali, London - Little trade with either of these nations; both were quite small relatively (I mean this in the nicest possible way, i still feel deeply sorry for anyone affected by it) and their overall effects were quite minimal

Drought - Look at the economies of the states affected most by the drought, and not riding on the resources boom, and tell me Howard has managed this well (NSW is very close to a recession, Victoria is stagnant)

Oil Issues - They affect every country, therefore it will not unfairly disadvantage us in regards to international competitiveness.

Really, Howard inherited an economy that had just come off the back of a recession. You have all seen the business cycle graph, after a recession, you get a boom, and in our case, helped no end by China's insatiable appetite for commodities, which we, of course, have in great abundance.

Keating's microeconomic reforms (e.g. decentralised wage fixation) also helped; and I believe Howard's major failing as an economic manager has been his failure to continue any meaningful microeconomic reform, despite of the huge surpluses we have been running which could easily be spent.

It seems to be the ALP party lines of the 21st century.. the 'inherited economy' and 'commodities boom'. To attribute the economic stability of the past 10 years (which far exceeds the 'boom' that follows a recession' purely to those factors would be remiss. Now that is not to say that they have not made a contribution, but to perceive the results as a given is a bit rich.

If one can'd discern between the macroeconomic responsbility of the Hawke/Keating Governments and the Howard Government, then one may as well give the same away. Microeconomic reform is one thing, however balancing this with fiscal responsbility is another. The deregulation and reform of the 1980's was a natural progression that received bi-partisan support, particularly from Howard. The main obstacle to such reforms prior to this was of course Malcolm Fraser, who was not known for supporting the opening of the Australian economy and the integration of our economy into an increasingly global form.

In 1983 Howard was promoting microeconomic reform, and believe it or not, Labor opposed deregulation until the necessity of such was realised.

A failure to continue meaningful microeconomic reform? We've seen a continuation of tax reform (including a reduction in the direct tax base), workplace relations reform, the future fund, continued tariff reform and the National Reform Agenda (the extension of National Competition policy).

The workplace is only going to diminish in size, and the demand for services will continue to thrive. Whenever government fails to use foresight in addressing a longer term issues (i.e flexibility in an economy of full employment) criticism is rife, yet meaningful reform is undertaken and yet again, criticism is rife..

 

[wagga]

It seems to be the ALP party lines of the 21st century.. the 'inherited economy' and 'commodities boom'. To attribute the economic stability of the past 10 years (which far exceeds the 'boom' that follows a recession' purely to those factors would be remiss. Now that is not to say that they have not made a contribution, but to perceive the results as a given is a bit rich.

I also mentioned the commodities boom - Howard's first period in office was characterised by the growth of coming off the back of a recession, and as a result of the commodities boom. As I said before, the stagnant economies of every state without significant commodity reserves is evidence of this. If this is ALP party lines, you definately have a career as a Liberal spin doctor.

If one can'd discern between the macroeconomic responsbility of the Hawke/Keating Governments and the Howard Government, then one may as well give the same away. Microeconomic reform is one thing, however balancing this with fiscal responsbility is another. The deregulation and reform of the 1980's was a natural progression that received bi-partisan support, particularly from Howard. The main obstacle to such reforms prior to this was of course Malcolm Fraser, who was not known for supporting the opening of the Australian economy and the integration of our economy into an increasingly global form.

In 1983 Howard was promoting microeconomic reform, and believe it or not, Labor opposed deregulation until the necessity of such was realised.

Balancing with fiscal responsibility? We have run massive surpluses for almost the entire term of the Howard Liberal government. When you see the state of public infrastructure, at both a state and federal level, it seems odd that at least some of this money has not been reinvested. Howard may well have supported the legislation, but what it comes down to is that Keating introduced it. You might want to read Ross Gittins article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/credit-where-its-due-on-unemployment/2007/02/13/1171128974534.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

A failure to continue meaningful microeconomic reform? We've seen a continuation of tax reform (including a reduction in the direct tax base), workplace relations reform, the future fund, continued tariff reform and the National Reform Agenda (the extension of National Competition policy).

The workplace is only going to diminish in size, and the demand for services will continue to thrive. Whenever government fails to use foresight in addressing a longer term issues (i.e flexibility in an economy of full employment) criticism is rife, yet meaningful reform is undertaken and yet again, criticism is rife..

Great - Work Choices, which almost completely removes unfair dismissal laws, and dismantles many hard won benefits to those unlucky enough to be forced onto AWA's, such as paid maternity leave. There needs to be a balance between economic rationalism and social justice.
Tariff Reform? Maybe, except in some cases, e.g. car importation, Howard has slowed down scheduled reductions in tariffs. Interestingly, Howard was recently talking like an old school protectionist in talking about providing protection for miners jobs potentially being displaced by the eventual abandonment of coal power. And before you get me for my earlier social justice claim, I believe the state of the planet comes before miners jobs.
Tax Reform? The introduction of an income tax system that required small businesses to file quarterly instead of yearly tax returns, requiring a massive incease in paperwork.

Howard may appear to have the right idea in terms of some of these issues, but the implementation seems to have a lot more in common with the needs of large businesses rather than the overall population as a whole.

Another failing of his is the failure of his government until recently, in the face of almost unsurmountable evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, and take economic steps to avert this potential catastrophe.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

All that matters is what people think. What can you look at now and think "great! this has come about due to howards lovely economic credentials"? Nothing.. It's just because people think everyone is happy, chearful and chubby cheeked.

My imagination created 9 surplus budgets and elimination of 96 billion dollars of debt left by Labor.

How about yours?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Damn right. Let's not elect the Labor party today, based on the debt that was created about 1.5 decades ago by completely different people, with completely different policies.

 

[frog12986]

I also mentioned the commodities boom - Howard's first period in office was characterised by the growth of coming off the back of a recession, and as a result of the commodities boom. As I said before, the stagnant economies of every state without significant commodity reserves is evidence of this. If this is ALP party lines, you definately have a career as a Liberal spin doctor.

The stagnant economies of every state that does not have commodity interests? Let's use NSW as an example shall we. The state government in this fine state of ours, has managed to splurge the record amounts of commonwealth revenue without substantially investing in the infrastructure in which it's responsiblity lies; investment that stimulates a positive economic environment. Further, Carr and Egan worked together to create a state with an economic environment that is hurting business through additional, unnecessary taxes and duties. For instance, in one clear example, the Maritime Authority is attempting to increase the rent of the Manly 16ft Skiff Sailing club from 1% of recorded profit, to 5-10% of total turnover. From $40,000 to $200,000...

Balancing with fiscal responsibility? We have run massive surpluses for almost the entire term of the Howard Liberal government. When you see the state of public infrastructure, at both a state and federal level, it seems odd that at least some of this money has not been reinvested. Howard may well have supported the legislation, but what it comes down to is that Keating introduced it.

On the flipside to that, the ALP has opposed every piece of economic reform implemented by the Coalition over the last 10 years. It seems slightly unusual, that reforms which have continued to benefit the economy have not receieved the Bi-partisan support of the 1980's.

As for infrastructure investment, the government has maintained record spending on health, education and the like, in conjunction with record commonwealth revenue distribution to the state governments. The fact that the NSW Government has been more concerned about maintaining a AAA credit rating over its responsibilities of service provision and administration, is not the making of the Federal government, no matter how Iemma, or Carr like to spin it.

Great - Work Choices, which almost completely removes unfair dismissal laws, and dismantles many hard won benefits to those unlucky enough to be forced onto AWA's, such as paid maternity leave. There needs to be a balance between economic rationalism and social justice.

You say there needs the to be a balance between economic rationalism and social justice, yet criticise the government for not for failing to continue microeconomic reform which falls within the ideology of the former. Workchoices is a direct response to the structural problems pertaining to the supply of labour which will only exacerbate as the population ages over the next 10 years. The 'doomsday' predictions of the ALP and the Unions, may have some relevance in an economy without capacity and excessive labour supply, however the circumstances in Australia over the next 30 years will move further and further away from such situations. The greatest form of social justice is employment.. I would actually like you to ask small business owners about the impact of paid maternity leave, (as well as unpaid), upon the running of their business.

As the OECD report concluded, (to which the ALP is gradually shifting its view), unfair dismissal laws have created a burden on the economy and restricted growth opportunities.

Tax Reform? The introduction of an income tax system that required small businesses to file quarterly instead of yearly tax returns, requiring a massive incease in paperwork.

Tax cuts on a regular basis (how many cuts did people receive under Hawke/Keating..let me see..), the broadening of the INDIRECT tax base, and the reduction of the DIRECT tax base. The latter is the most pertinent point. The govenment has managed the budget in a manner that has reduced the burden of direct taxation and essentially begun the process of tying taxation to expenditure. Once again, positive reform opposed by the ALP.

Howard may appear to have the right idea in terms of some of these issues, but the implementation seems to have a lot more in common with the needs of large businesses rather than the overall population as a whole.

Reduction of business tax, reductions in PERSONAL tax rates, and the subsequent creation of a positive economic environment.

At the end of the day, reform is one thing, but MANAGEMENT is another. It's easy to say that the prosperity that has occurred over the last 10 years is a given, and the environment may have been conducive to such prosperity, but without the correct steering both in a macro and micro sense, the rest becomes irrelevant. A ferrari is a super machine, but one needs the ability to drive it unabated.

Both the Whitlam and Hawke/Keating era's displayed a complete removal of fiscal responsibility. The biggest error of the ALP in the 1980's was combining zealous structural reform with continued expediture, which ultimately left a debt of $96 Billion. The more the ALP associates itself with so called 'social justice' the more people will be inclined to maintain the perception of fiscal irresponsiblity in order to satisfy the many social vested interests.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Haha, I love these quote filled debates. It's a shame I don't know much about it, because I'd love to join in. It's a pity that Ross Gittins doesn't browse these forums. He'd settle the score.

 

[frog12986]

Haha, I love these quote filled debates. It's a shame I don't know much about it, because I'd love to join in. It's a pity that Ross Gittins doesn't browse these forums. He'd settle the score.

Actually it would be better to have input from Ross Gittins and Terry McCrann. Both knowledgeble men, but from varying viewpoints. Gittins articles tend to be more critical of Howard, whilst McCranns are more supportive (in a general sense).

 

[wheredanton]

An observation from the US.

The 'left wing' (if you would like to call them that) ie the Democrats are not as badly perceived as economic managers as the left in Australia (ALP) is.

The time frames of government were a little different. The economic hardship an high interest rates of the 1980s happened during a Republican administration, in Australian they happened under an ALP government. Additionally the Democrats enjoyed the economic prosperity that came with the late 90s and early 00s.

 

[Optophobia]

My imagination created 9 surplus budgets and elimination of 96 billion dollars of debt left by Labor.

How about yours?

Yes, and it was a free lunch which brought this about. Liberals are just brilliant at running the economy, whilst Labor is shit. That's it. It's as simple as that.

 

[wagga]

The stagnant economies of every state that does not have commodity interests? Let's use NSW as an example shall we. The state government in this fine state of ours, has managed to splurge the record amounts of commonwealth revenue without substantially investing in the infrastructure in which it's responsiblity lies; investment that stimulates a positive economic environment. Further, Carr and Egan worked together to create a state with an economic environment that is hurting business through additional, unnecessary taxes and duties. For instance, in one clear example, the Maritime Authority is attempting to increase the rent of the Manly 16ft Skiff Sailing club from 1% of recorded profit, to 5-10% of total turnover. From $40,000 to $200,000...

Infrastructure that the NSW govt invests in includes some roads, education, healthcare, water, etc. Apart from the water, none of the Carr/Iemma government's policies in these areas would be having a significant impact upon the economy by now, as we all know, microeconomic reform can take up to 20 years to impact. I agree, I think this state is in a shambles in terms of its governance, but that does not excuse the fact that Howard has failed to invest in significant rail transportation, to name one example. As for your example, I dont think the affairs of Manly 16ft Skiff Sailing Club is really that relevant to the vast majority of the population.

On the flipside to that, the ALP has opposed every piece of economic reform implemented by the Coalition over the last 10 years. It seems slightly unusual, that reforms which have continued to benefit the economy have not receieved the Bi-partisan support of the 1980's.

As for infrastructure investment, the government has maintained record spending on health, education and the like, in conjunction with record commonwealth revenue distribution to the state governments. The fact that the NSW Government has been more concerned about maintaining a AAA credit rating over its responsibilities of service provision and administration, is not the making of the Federal government, no matter how Iemma, or Carr like to spin it.

To tell you the truth I haven't really put much thought into opposition support of the Coalition's economic reforms, although if the examples I already mentioned are anything to go by, I believe they have good reason in opposing them.

In terms of spending, the government has failed to keep pace with required increases in healthcare (I realise it is more a state issue, but in terms of new hospitals etc, federal funding is required). Visit any hospital in the bush and you will know what I'm talking about.
In terms of education, I believe we are the only nation in the OECD to have actually decreased spending on universities in real terms in the last 10 years...tell me how that makes any sense. It is all very well for the Coalition members to foist extra costs onto students such as myself; they don't realise how useful the free university educations they recieved were.

As I said, I think the state government is a shambles, but that is not the argument here. This is federal government.

You say there needs the to be a balance between economic rationalism and social justice, yet criticise the government for not for failing to continue microeconomic reform which falls within the ideology of the former. Workchoices is a direct response to the structural problems pertaining to the supply of labour which will only exacerbate as the population ages over the next 10 years. The 'doomsday' predictions of the ALP and the Unions, may have some relevance in an economy without capacity and excessive labour supply, however the circumstances in Australia over the next 30 years will move further and further away from such situations. The greatest form of social justice is employment.. I would actually like you to ask small business owners about the impact of paid maternity leave, (as well as unpaid), upon the running of their business.

As the OECD report concluded, (to which the ALP is gradually shifting its view), unfair dismissal laws have created a burden on the economy and restricted growth opportunities.

I fail to see the conflict here - you can have microeconomic reform that still manages to achieve social justice. I think it is reasonable to give mothers some time off with pay after the birth of their child...as for its effects on small businesses, perhaps the government could subsidise this? $3000 doesn't go very far raising a child these days.
There is a place for reduction in unfair dismissal laws, for truly poor workers, but removing them almost completely and turning the AIRC into somewhat of a toothless tiger is not the way to go about it. There still needs to be some reasonable avenue of appeal.

The aim of economic management is overall to give maximum benefit to the population, not for the sake of economic growth.

Tax cuts on a regular basis (how many cuts did people receive under Hawke/Keating..let me see..), the broadening of the INDIRECT tax base, and the reduction of the DIRECT tax base. The latter is the most pertinent point. The govenment has managed the budget in a manner that has reduced the burden of direct taxation and essentially begun the process of tying taxation to expenditure. Once again, positive reform opposed by the ALP.

Reduction of business tax, reductions in PERSONAL tax rates, and the subsequent creation of a positive economic environment.

Hang on, you were earlier talking about fiscal responsibility, but now you are espousing the virtues of tax cuts, with the aformentioned crumbling infrastructure at both state and federal level, we can ill afford. A case in point was last financial year's cut. The RBA was warning of increased inflation, so what does the government do? Give the people a tax cut. Sure enough, this gets spent, and inflation rises to 4%. For some reason people seem completely opposed to tax, but go to a country with lower taxes, such as the USA - expensive health care, education etc...Notice that the country ranked 1st on the UN HDI is Norway, a country with very high taxes, and hence, excellent infrastructure.

You also failed to address my point about the huge increase in book keeping required by small businesses under the new tax system. How is that a positive change?

At the end of the day, reform is one thing, but MANAGEMENT is another. It's easy to say that the prosperity that has occurred over the last 10 years is a given, and the environment may have been conducive to such prosperity, but without the correct steering both in a macro and micro sense, the rest becomes irrelevant. A ferrari is a super machine, but one needs the ability to drive it unabated.

Both the Whitlam and Hawke/Keating era's displayed a complete removal of fiscal responsibility. The biggest error of the ALP in the 1980's was combining zealous structural reform with continued expediture, which ultimately left a debt of $96 Billion. The more the ALP associates itself with so called 'social justice' the more people will be inclined to maintain the perception of fiscal irresponsiblity in order to satisfy the many social vested interests.

If the government's management has been so good, as you claim, why are we now seeing a slowing in productivity growth following the Keating government's various reforms starting to wear off? As I have mentioned, current growth is almost entirely the result of the commodities boom - how can the Howard government take credit for that?

All the Howard government has done has taken the debt from the public sector and shifted it to the private sector. Of course, in hindsight, Keating's economic management was far from perfect, but that is easy to say, due to evolution in economic theory since. Although it did saddle us with large debt, Keating/Hawke's investment did set the economy up for its recovery from the recession.

 

[ZabZu]

You say there needs the to be a balance between economic rationalism and social justice, yet criticise the government for not for failing to continue microeconomic reform which falls within the ideology of the former. Workchoices is a direct response to the structural problems pertaining to the supply of labour which will only exacerbate as the population ages over the next 10 years. The 'doomsday' predictions of the ALP and the Unions, may have some relevance in an economy without capacity and excessive labour supply, however the circumstances in Australia over the next 30 years will move further and further away from such situations. The greatest form of social justice is employment.. I would actually like you to ask small business owners about the impact of paid maternity leave, (as well as unpaid), upon the running of their business.

As the OECD report concluded, (to which the ALP is gradually shifting its view), unfair dismissal laws have created a burden on the economy and restricted growth opportunities.

WorkChoices was a industrial relations reform that Howard has aimed to enact for decades. In 1996 he introduced AWAs but he had to appease to the democrats by having a no-disadvantage test. The removal of this no-disadvantage test and further erosion of working conditions gives employers a clear choice, AWAs are more flexible and cut costs.

AWAs individualise the workforce, making unions irrelevant. Howard is giving employers a blank cheque regarding workplace practices, they have flexibility to the extreme. Some conditions I feel must be protected (and cant be traded away) which are no longer protected are penatly rates on public holidays (was removed in 1996), rest breaks and meal breaks.

Flexibility in the workplace is good, it allows more people to be employed and gives employees flexibility in the hours they work (ie. nights, weekend,etc) but flexibility has gone way too far under workchoices.

Unfair dismissal is a sticky subject. I believe workers should have some job security but not too much. Conservatives criticise the unfair dismisal laws saying they are bad for the economy and destroy jobs. But people working as casuals and people on probation have no job security and they make up a large proportion of the workforce. Casuals alone are almost 1/3 of all workers. Im not saying im against casual employment, im saying that with such a large proportion of people with no job security, this hype about the economic disadvantages of unfair dismissal laws is a bit exaggerated.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes, and it was a free lunch which brought this about. Liberals are just brilliant at running the economy, whilst Labor is shit. That's it. It's as simple as that.

It's always refreshing to see people putting immense amounts of thought and effort into their posts. Well done.

 

[frog12986]

It's always refreshing to see people putting immense amounts of thought and effort into their posts. Well done.

I think it was a sarcastic remark somehow..

Either way, this whole point can be argued until the endeth of time.. depending on which slant of economics you look at. One extremely pertinent point however is that the tax reform undertaken by this government has seen unprecedented levels of Commonwealth revenue finding it's way into state government coffers. Record amounts of revenue that have been mismananged and abused by governments intent on building up bureacracy as oppose to infrastructure. Whilst the 'figures' convey a fairly average increase in investment in infrastructure comparable to other nations in the OECD, this type of indicator fails to take into account the indirect flow of capital into health, education and the like, via the state/commonwealth arrangements..

As for the comments regarding the situation with Manly 16ft Skiff club, it shows the complete disdain that the NSW Government has not only for business in NSW, but also for organisations that contribute to social programmes. I would've thought that a person who extolls the virtues of social justice would disregard the fact that it doesn't affect the 'majority' of the population; the point is the principle behind what the government is intending to do, and reflects poorly on their attitude.