Institute for Private Enterprise » WA State Politics

GST Shares, Budget Strategy, NT Royal Cn

Des Moore — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 02:11:30 +0000

Turnbull’s Statement on WA’s Share of GST Revenue

In my Commentary on Tuesday I suggested that Turnbull’s announcement at the WA Liberal Party’s conference held last weekend that each State would now be guaranteed a minimum share of GST revenue was, once again, lacking in any serious analysis or any checking first even with senior ministers, let alone other states. It has subsequently emerged that the new arrangements, the calculation of which has not been stated, are first to be discussed with other states and that it is unclear when they might start (although WA Premier Barnett who has an election next March says he thought it would be this calendar year). The Australian also published an analysis on the assumption that the minimum share would likely be 75% and that WA (now receiving only 30%) might not receive any future benefit from any such arrangement. My letter to the Australian on the issue was published yesterday with four others (see GST Shares).

Turnbull’s Address to CEDA

It has been predicted in some quarters that Turnbull would give a major policy speech prior to the resumption of Parliament on 30 August. He gave what purported to be such an address yesterday (see Turnbull to CEDA) outlining what he described as the Coalition’s economic plan that “will ensure that Australia is more productive, more competitive, more innovative” and indicating that when Parliament resumes the government would introduce an Omnibus Bill that puts together all the Government’s savings measures that we understand from the election campaign the Labor Party is prepared to support”. Turnbull claimed that such savings amount to about $6.5 billion over the next four years, which compares with total estimated budget expenditure of $1,889 billion ie a miniscule reduction of 0.3%. The proposed savings cover a hotch-potch of items (see Budget Savings) and some dispute has already emerged as to whether Labor will accept them even though they had accepted them during the election campaign. The largest saving of about $1bn relates to the funding of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and this seems to be particularly disputed by Labor. Of the $6.5 bn of savings items listed only about $6 bn require legislation to become effective.

Surprisingly, Turnbull gave no indication of whether he intended to seek further savings in spending or where such savings might even be considered. One would have expected that he would have at least indicated that, given the estimated deficit of $84.6 bn over the next four years, the Coalition intended to seek further savings in future budgets. But while he indicated that “good budget management is a vital component of our economic plan” and “a strategy to get the budget back into balance” is needed, apart from the $6.5 bn “agreed” saving he did not include any reference to possible areas in which the Coalition would also (even) consider reducing spending. Yet total spending is projected to increase by 13% over the next four years and would still then constitute 25.2% of GDP (compared with 25.8% in the current year). Could an actual total reduction ever be considered by a Turnbull government?

Outside the budget, Turnbull’s address to CEDA is also disappointing and largely consists of a repetition of previously stated broad objectives without giving any real indication as to how these might be achieved and with the inclusion of some objectives which are questionable, such as an Australia which has high wages and a generous social welfare safety net. As Judith Sloan suggests in today’s Australian, “the most disappointing aspect of Turnbull’s speech is the reinforcement of the thinness of the government’s economic agenda” (see “Sloan on Budget”). Her conclusion is spot on – “ the government needs to get real about economic management, not just spout slogans”.

Royal Commission on N Territory Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents

A major candidate for a reduction in budget allocations is the ABC, which appears to continue to distort the presentations on issues which it chooses to show on TV. Its new head seems to have made things worse and the only way it can be disciplined is to cut its funding.

The latest example of a serious distortion is its presentation in Four Corners on the Northern Territory’s treatment of juvenile delinquents. In an article published in the Herald Sun on 16 August, former Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, pointed out that although the footage shown was almost six years old, viewers were not told of this, leaving the impression the incidents shown were the fault of the present government (which faces an election early next year) not the Labor government then in office. Nor did it say that the officers involved in taking disciplinary action had been cleared in a court action or why they had taken the action. No mention was made either of the reforms made in the NT prison system since the time at which the incident occurred. Kennett asked whether if the ABC had made an accurate presentation there would have been a Royal Commission appointed.

In this article in today’s Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt takes up from the Kennett article and refers to a letter written to the NT corrections Minister who implemented reforms by the Four Corner’s reporter who produced the program. That letter showed that the ABC knew that he had made extensive reforms and in fact acknowledged “Minister Elferink, this is a significant legacy. It is also your legacy”. Yet none of this was mentioned in the presentation. In fact the ABC presenter of the program, Sarah Ferguson, implied that the NT treatment of juvenile delinquents was similar to the torture inflicted on those at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib jail!

Bolt argues that Elferink was “tricked by the ABC” and that “Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was a fool to let the Four Corners report panic him into calling a royal commission only 10 hours later”. An agile PM might now cancel the royal commission and reduce the ABC’s funding.

Refugees Surge Raises Serious Problems

Des Moore — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:42:27 +0000

Policies on Refugee Surge Raise Serious Problems

The difficulties being experienced by refugees from Syria, Iraq and other Middle East countries in reaching Germany are not stopping the increasing attempts by individuals to take advantage of the free inflow which that country is allowing. Some are portraying Merkel as a saviour and there is pressure on other western countries to accept increased numbers.

Obama has responded to criticisms that the US is doing too little by announcing that it will take 10,000 Syrians (one wonders how the NY Times, which criticised Australia’s initial response of no net additions, have responded to Obama’s number). The US already accepts 70,000 refugees a year and the 10,000 appears to be a one-off. The report “Obama wants US to accept 10,000″ indicates that there will be strict security checks to “weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would be terrorists” but Obama is rightly being blamed by Republicans for failing to tackle the terrorists from IS and Assad.

It is interesting to note that, while the US is conducting air strikes against IS and has some non-combat, advisory military in Iraq, it still has almost 30,000 military in South Korea as part of its defence against a possible attack by North Korea. About 8,000 of these are combat troops. It seems strange that preference is given to troops on the ground in South Korea but not in Iraq/Syria.

Refugee advocates in Australia have also been calling for an increase in our 12,000 Syrian refugees. A meeting of 30 ethnic religious and community sector leaders with Abbott included an official representative of Shites but the Lebanese Muslim Association (the Sunnis) was not invited (see Sunnis not frozen out: Morrison). The emphasis given by Abbott to choosing “persecuted minorities” should allow most of those to be Christians but, as I have previously argued, the government and church leaders should be saying publicly that this is the major aim.

Relevant here are the reports that a high proportion of the refugees going to Germany are not (at least initially) women and children but are young men with a Muslim religion. As pointed out by Andrew Bolt on his Sunday TV program, the leftish Australian media is not showing or writing about the extent of young Muslim men going to Germany (in fact most shown on TV appear to be in remarkably good shape). With a likely follow through of bringing oldies and families, these will add significantly to the 6 million Muslims already in Germany and, according to an analysis published by a US think-tank, the Gatestone Institute, those German Muslims are heavily under the influence of an extremist group in that country. Note also that Turkish intelligence under Erdogan operates from a mosque in Cologne, apparently to keep Turks within the Islam group.

See below Germany’s Appeasement of Radical Islam. (Gatestone describes itself as a non-partisan think-tank chaired by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and senior State department official who has publicly expressed concern at the threat from extremist Islamic groups).

The standard treatment in Australian media is to praise Germany for its opening of doors to refugees escaping from IS and other terrorist groups. But analysis of the situation suggests that a significant proportion of the refugees may be “economic” migrants using the refugee label. The inability of governments in the EU to explain the problems with extensive differences of culture has led to many in European communities overlooking the risks of increased Islamism. Differences in immigration policies of individual countries do not help.

Yet today’s news report that Merkel said she is “convinced it was right” to have an open borders policy. But an anti-refugee open door attitude also seems to be developing with supportive demonstrations as people question the rationale and start to realise the risks. In his article published yesterday (see below A new dynamic changing the global strategic environment), Greg Sheridan argues that “Europeans are caught between two conflicting emotions: compassion , and the desire to control borders and decide who comes into their countries”. But if the problems from not controlling borders are not recognised in policy changes, there is a serious threat of a break-up of the EU and of possible forcible internal resistance in Europe.

Most Australians would also strongly object if support from open door refugee advocates here was to gain strength and force an increase in Syrian refugees. The need for a thorough checking system cannot be over-stated.

Canning By-election

Next Saturday’s by-election is being made more difficult for the Coalition not only by the involvement of unions but by the increase in media opposition to Abbott in the Fairfax press and the ABC/SBS. It is “natural” that Labor would key off Abbott’s poor Newspoll but the Fairfax press and the ABC/SBS have extended their left views to the point where almost any possible adverse effect from (for example) the free trade agreement with China, or any critical comment on it, are blown up without attention being given to the advantages. Similarly a joke by Dutton on sea levels, made outside the meeting with Pacific Islanders but heard through a media microphone, became repeated “national news” for those news outlets because some Pacific Island leaders were invited to be critics.

One reason for this increase in anti-Abbottism is the inadequate explaining and “selling” of Coalition policies. I have argued for some time that there is a need for a wider justification of a range of policies, most notably the threat from Islamic extremism, global warming and the exercise of union power. The publication of a paper on global warming, for example, would have shown that few of the Pacific Islands have experienced increased sea levels. Swedish analyst Dr Nils-Axel Morner has published the results of over 30 year’s careful research by himself showing just that (he visited Australia some years ago). This should have been distributed to their leaders some time ago, along with a more general analysis of the dangerous warming thesis.