Michelle Grattan 

Political editor of The Age February 1, 2013

With Julia Gillard on the back foot, Tony Abbott makes a foolish ministry pledge.

A day after Julia Gillard tried to frame her year as neatly as she could with her bold announcement of the September 14 election date, the arrest of MP Craig Thomson threw a heap of mud over the picture.

The Thomson arrest naturally overshadowed Tony Abbott's National Press Club appearance. But the man who is trying this week to cast himself as Mr Positive would have been delighted to find himself upstaged by someone else's negativity.

Abbott does not have the best available team in the right jobs.

Thomson has wrought an unbelievable amount of damage on Gillard and her government, and the story keeps going on and on. Not that the ALP can do anything but blame itself. Evidence of his alleged wrongdoing hit the front pages well before the 2010 election but it reselected him regardless. Then, given the new parliament was hung, Thomson became more important than anyone would have anticipated.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

So, as the evidence against him mounted, Gillard stuck by him, defending him repeatedly. The ALP helped pay his legal bills. Eventually she and Labor had to distance themselves; Thomson, suspended from the party, went to the crossbench.

If Thomson is convicted, he would be ineligible to be an MP but, assuming he sits tight, the matter is unlikely to be finalised before the election, when he will disappear.

If Thomson departed soon and there was a byelection won by the Liberals, that wouldn't bring down the government, but it would make things more precarious. The position of - wait for it - former speaker Peter Slipper would become more crucial. Slipper goes before the court this month for allegedly misusing Cabcharges. ''This is a government that relies on the presumption of innocence for its very existence,'' shadow attorney-general George Brandis said.

The government's official stand on Thomson continues its earlier line - that everyone should wait for the law to take its course. But the law is one thing; politics another. Thomson's facing 150 charges reinforces the image of sleaze and corruption that has come out of the Health Services Union affair. The fact that he is on the crossbench is irrelevant. He is, and is seen as, a Labor man.

Gillard is fortunate, however, that there is no sign of the crucial crossbenchers who keep her in power believing Thomson's arrest is something that should affect their attitude. Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie said Thomson was innocent until proved guilty and had every right to sit in the Parliament during the legal process.

The opposition is being careful on the presumption of innocence argument but Abbott, questioned at the Press Club, homed in immediately on Gillard, accusing her of ''running a protection racket for Craig Thomson for months and years''.

The sensational Thomson arrest, incidentally, minimised the embarrassment for Abbott of email correspondence that found its way into the media about the preparation of his Thursday speech. His chief press secretary, Andrew Hirst, had advised him not to announce a big cut a Coalition government would make (because it would take off some of the positive gloss).

Abbott told his audience he had rejected Hirst's advice: the undertaking - to scrap the Schoolkids Bonus - was in his speech. It was all a bit strange, however, because the Coalition had earlier indicated the bonus would go - although there had later been some argy-bargy about it.

Apart from confirming this proposed cut, Abbott's address contained nothing new. But in the question-and-answer session he did make an important commitment - and it is an ill-judged one.

He was asked whether he planned to take his whole shadow ministry into an Abbott ministry or would be looking to give portfolios to Arthur Sinodinos (John Howard's former chief of staff who is only a shadow parliamentary secretary), Mal Brough (former federal minister) and Christian Porter (former West Australian treasurer). The latter two will come in at the election.

Emphasising what a good job he believed his team members were doing, Abbott gave this stunning undertaking: ''I think all of them can expect to go into government in their current positions.''

His stand, presumably driven by wanting to keep everyone loyal, is extraordinary - usually an opposition leader is reluctant to give more than a few top people public assurances they will definitely hang on to their same jobs in government.

This is serious foolishness. Abbott has avoided any substantial reshuffle in opposition (beyond minor adjustments forced on him by events). His view is that change produces discontented people, who can be divisive. But to give carte blanche for them all to keep their areas in government is something else - especially as, if he didn't honour his word, he would be accused of an immediate spectacular broken promise. Depending on the circumstances, that could create bad blood and distrust, which wouldn't be a good start for a new PM.

Abbott does not have the best available team in the right jobs. There is talent on the backbench that should be on the frontbench, and Sinodinos should be in the shadow cabinet. Looking forward, Brough's frontbench claim is questionable given his performance in the Ashby affair, but Porter surely has a case.

It had been assumed that if Abbott won, he would review and improve his line-up. Now he has cut off that option. A leader's authority is usually at its strongest when he or she first takes office; to squander that is rash. Yet if a leader is to be a good PM, having a top team is vital.

His comments will dismay many in his party, not just ambitious up-and-comers wanting jobs for themselves but those looking to promote good administration in government. In all the debate about the opposition's failure to release enough policy detail there has been little attention on how well it would make the transition to government. Abbott's undertaking makes you worry.

Michelle Grattan is The Age's political editor.

Craig Thomson Arrested | Abbott Press Club Speech

Mark Kenny February 1, 2013

Click to play video

Will Thomson charges damage Labor?

Click to play video

Thomson: 'I've done no wrong-doing'

Click to play video

Federal MP Craig Thomson arrested

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and Employment Minister Bill Shorten debate the implications of fraud charges against ex-Labor MP Craig Thomson.

The surprise arrest of beleaguered former Labor MP Craig Thomson has sent shockwaves through a government that was just coming to terms with its brave new world of a hyper-extended election campaign.

Mr Thomson's case, which has been a running sore for Labor, has now entered a critical phase just as Prime Minister Julia Gillard had seized the initiative with her September 14 election announcement.

Government and opposition figures reacted cautiously to the news of Thursday's arrest, eager to avoid the legal pitfalls of commenting on matters before the courts.

Craig Thomson leaves the Wyong Local Court after being charged with fraud. Photo: Mick Tsikas

Mr Thomson faces 150 charges of fraud, any one of which has the potential, if he were found guilty, to force his disqualification from Federal Parliament. But legal experts said it was unlikely that court proceedings would be concluded before the election.

A more immediate threat comes from the massive hit to the MP's finances associated with funding his legal defence.

Fairfax Media last year revealed that NSW Labor had paid almost $350,000 in legal costs relating to Mr Thomson before the MP was suspended from the party in May.

An extract of a report from NSW Labor's finance committee, prepared for the state conference, showed $240,000 of that amount was to cover a defamation settlement with Fairfax Media.

It is understood that party officials had been worried that if the ALP had not footed the bills, Mr Thomson could have gone bankrupt, disqualifying him from being an MP and causing a byelection that could imperil the minority Gillard government.

It remains unclear how Mr Thomson will meet his new costs, having left the party and having no visible means of outside support.

If a byelection were required, it would be a matter for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Anna Burke, to issue the writs. But with an election date set, that is seen as unlikely.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was alerted to the news about Mr Thomson's arrest during the question-and-answer session of his National Press Club address.

''We have certainly respected, or tried to respect, the rule that you do not comment on the specifics of cases which are currently before the courts and we will respect that rule,'' he said.

But he said the matter again raised questions about the judgment of Ms Gillard, whom he claimed ran a ''protection racket'' for Mr Thomson. The Opposition would continue to pursue those judgment questions.

Coalition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz questioned what Ms Gillard knew and when, hinting that she might have been tipped off before she announced the election date on Wednesday.

This suggestion was rejected by Ms Gillard while she toured flood-affected Bundaberg, describing Mr Thomson's situation as ''something for the police''.

Asked if she had any prior knowledge about the arrest, she said: ''Of course not.''

Trade Minister Craig Emerson would not be drawn on whether Mr Thomson, now an independent MP, should stand at the next election.

''Let the investigative processes continue without political interference,'' he told Sky News, adding that Mr Thomson was entitled to the presumption of innocence.

''There has been no finding of guilt against Mr Thomson,'' he said.

Mr Thomson has strenuously denied that he misused union funds to pay for prostitutes, air travel, entertainment and cash withdrawals when he was Health Services Union national secretary from 2002 to 2007.

His lawyer, Chris McArdle, was scathing about the arrest process as he defended his client's innocence.

He criticised the way police had handled the arrest, complaining that journalists had received more warning than Mr Thomson.

A spokesman for NSW Police said Mr Thomson had been arrested because he refused an invitation before Christmas to surrender himself.

''I believe that, from reading the warrant, he was invited to travel to Victoria to surrender himself prior to Christmas, he didn't do that,'' he told reporters. The spokesman described Mr Thomson's demeanour as calm.

''He's accepted what's been said to him, he hasn't argued.''

Mr McArdle denied the NSW police account, saying Mr Thomson had only been invited to go to Victoria for an interview.

''It is untrue to say we were invited to go and surrender our client for arrest,'' he told ABC TV. ''If we had been given that invitation, we would have done so.''

He explained that Mr Thomson had declined to be interviewed because he lived in a liberal democracy, "whereby you are not obliged to answer questions''.

Mr Thomson will be disqualified from Parliament if he is convicted of a criminal offence that carries a jail term of one year or more.

HSU national president Chris Brown said that the union had received the news about Mr Thomson's arrest on Thursday, ''like everyone else''

AAP

Embattled MP Craig Thomson declined an offer to surrender himself to Victoria police, which led to his arrest in NSW relating to 150 fraud offences, police say.

But Thomson's lawyer disputes this, saying his client was only invited to travel to Victoria for an interview.

The federal independent MP was arrested at his electorate office in Tuggerah, on the NSW Central Coast, on Thursday under a warrant from the Victorian police.

The NSW fraud squad assisted Victorian police in his arrest.

Head of the fraud squad, Detective Superintendent Colin Dyson, has seen the Victorian warrant.

"I believe from reading the warrant that he was invited to travel to Victoria to surrender himself prior to Christmas," Det Supt Dyson told reporters outside Wyong Police Station.

"He didn't do that, or refused, and the end result was the issue of that warrant."

Thomson's lawyer Chris McArdle said the police version of events was "completely untrue".

The request for his client to travel to Victoria was to attend an interview, not surrender to police, he said.

"If we had been given that invitation we would have done so and we wouldn't have needed this reality TV show that's going on," he said.

Mr McArdle said he and his client would travel to Melbourne on Wednesday and follow the court's instruction after that.

"This is something out of the Roman colosseum; this man's been thrown to the lions," he said.

"Five policemen arrested a man for minor misappropriation charges, which we deny. You don't need five policemen to do that. You only need five policemen if there's a risk of violence."

Thomson is still being investigated by NSW police in relation to Strike Force Carnarvon, looking into alleged fraud in the NSW branch of the HSU, but an outcome for that investigation could be months away.

"Mr Thomson remains a person of interest in Strike Force Carnarvon inquiries," Det Supt Dyson said.

"I cannot say whether a decision will be made as to whether he'll be charged.

"That is very much dependent on the strength of the evidence at the end of the day."

Up to 10 officers arrived at Thomson's electorate offices, including two officers from Victorian police.

"He's been co-operative," Det Supt Dyson said. "He's been very calm. He's accepted what's been said to him. He hasn't argued."

NSW police said their investigation had not been dependent on the outcome of the Victorian investigation.

Victorian police were expected to ask that Thomson be extradited and that he appear in a magistrate's court in Melbourne in February.

Mr McArdle said he was angry at the way his client had been treated, which was a "plainly unsuitable way to besmirch someone's life".

He believed there was a "huge relationship" between the hung federal parliament and his client's predicament.

Mr McArdle said he did not do Victorian criminal law so alternative legal representation in Melbourne may be required "but our client will definitely be there".

Thomson refused surrender offer: police

By ABC's Antony Green

Photo: The losers from this are political pundits robbed of endless speculation on when the election will be held (AAP) (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Julia Gillard's early election announcement follows the trend towards certainty seen across Westminster governments and robs political pundits of their chance to speculate, writes Antony Green.

In announcing the date of the 2013 federal election as September 14, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has given the longest notice of an election, certainly since 1943, but probably since federation.

Robert Menzies gave three months notice of the 1958 and 1961 elections, but giving eight months must be a new record.

It is certainly longer than the one day's notice Malcolm Fraser gave in 1983. There will be no excuses for voters failing to update their enrolment at this year's election.

Of course, there is still an outside possibility the election could be earlier. The government could lose an important vote in the House and be forced to resign. There could be a change of Labor leadership, and any new leader may choose to adopt a different election date. But the prospects of a change from the September 14 timeline looks unlikely.

It is certainly no longer in the Coalition's interest to call for an early election. An election before August 3 would be for the House of Representatives and four Territory senators only. If the Coalition won an early election, it would be stuck with a hostile Senate that needed an election in early 2014, an unattractive prospect for any government one year into its term.

In giving so much notice of the election date, the Prime Minister follows a growing trend in democracies that base their parliamentary system on the UK Parliament in Westminster.

In Australia, four states and the two territories already have fixed election dates. Only Queensland, Tasmania and the Federal Parliament still have variable terms where the head of government determines the date.

Many Canadian provinces have adopted fixed terms, as has the current UK government, with prime minister David Cameron having already announced the date of the 2015 election.

In 2011, New Zealand prime minister John Key gave nine months' notice of his country's election to avoid speculation on the election clashing with the Rugby World Cup.

In taking this step, Julia Gillard has departed from the tradition that has developed in Australia since 1990 of prime ministers announcing an election on the weekend before the resumption of parliamentary sitting with a minimum notice of weeks. (Or the six-week campaign the sitting schedule forced John Howard to adopt in 2004 and 2007.)

Before 1990, it was normal for the prime minister to announce the date of the election to Parliament after a visit to the Governor-General, and for Parliament to sit after the election date was announced. Formal campaigning would not begin until the writ was issued two or three weeks later.

Only the 1983 snap double dissolution departed from this tradition. When Bob Hawke reverted to the parliamentary announcement of an election date for 1984 and 1987, he was criticised for creating an overlong campaign. In 1990, he began the new tradition of announcing an election on a weekend with a minimum campaign.

Now Julia Gillard has gone to the opposite extreme. Instead of trying to catch the opposition out short of detail with a snap poll, the Prime Minister has set out a road map to polling day, giving the Opposition plenty of time to announce policy.

The losers from this are political pundits robbed of endless speculation on when the election will be held.

The winners, the poor cameramen and journalists who will not have to spend fruitless weekends sitting outside the governor-general's residence on the off-chance that the Prime Minister will drive up.

This article was first published on Antony Green's Election Blog.

Antony Green is the ABC's election analyst. View his full profile here.

Gillard brings the waiting game to an end - The Drum - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Anthony Sharwood and Simon Black

From: news.com.au

January 30, 2013 3:34PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a September 14 federal election now, saying she wants a year of "cool and reasoned deliberation". Picture: Ray Strange Source: The Australian

AUSTRALIAN Jewish leaders have dismissed suggestions that the Federal election date is disrespectful to the Jewish community.

The September 14 election falls on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, and critics have lined up to take issue with Julia Gillard's timing.

Sometimes called the "Sabbath of Sabbaths" or the "Super Sabbath", Yom Kippur literally means Day of Atonement. It is a day on which Jews undergo a 25-hour period of fasting when even the not particularly religious attend synagogue - much like Christmas Day attracts once-a-year churchgoers.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull was among the first to voice his disappointment on Twitter when he tweeted "Deeply disappointed that Julia Gillard chose to hold the election on Yom Kippur - the most solemn and sacred day of the Jewish year."

Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg also took to Twitter saying the election timing: "disenfranchises many Jewish Australians and is incredibly sloppy work".

But director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim, says the majority of Australia's 107,000 Jews would not be fussed about the date.

"To be absolutely truthful it is not a major issue for us, because every election takes place on the Jewish Sabbath," Mr Wertheim told news.com.au.

Mr Wertheim's comments were backed up by CEO of NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, who said postal and pre votes would be used in place of in-person voting.

"It's not a problem at all," Mr Alhadeff said.

"Members of the community will simply pre or postal vote."

The Jewish Sabbath is a day of rest, when many Jews perform no work whatsoever. For the ultra-orthodox, "work" includes trivial activities like turning on appliances and light switches and even using a pen.

That means no trip to the ballot box in any election year, regardless of whether or not election day falls on Yom Kippur.

For those with a sporting bent, the election falls on the first week of the NRL finals and the second week of the AFL finals. That won't bother the PM as her team, the Western Bulldogs, are unlikely to be there.

The election date would also have been Amy Winehouse's 30th birthday.

IT'S KOSHER: Jewish leaders defend Yom Kippur election date | News.com.au

From chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Photo: If the results were replicated on election day, Labor would be reduced to 54 seats in the Federal Parliament. (AAP)

Related Story: Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll

Labor is at risk of losing about 18 seats at this year's federal election according to an opinion poll focused on Australia's most marginal electorates.

The poll of 54 seats conducted by JWS Research shows an average swing against the Government of 4.8 per cent, giving the Coalition a two-party preferred lead of 54.9 per cent to 45.1 per cent.

According to the state-by-state breakdown of the figures, Labor's prospects are worst in New South Wales, where the party could lose 10 seats with a further three in Victoria.

However, Labor could pick up as many as six seats in Queensland.

"That's because at the last election the Coalition won a lot of seats in Queensland, so there are a lot of marginal Coalition seats in Queensland," JWS research managing director John Scales told AM.

"I'd say there's probably some state-based factors coming into play there as well."

The poll, published in The Financial Review newspaper, was commissioned by ECG Advisory Solutions which is a consultancy firm run by former Liberal candidate David Gazard.

If the results were replicated on election day, Labor would be reduced to 54 seats in the Federal Parliament, giving the Coalition a clear majority.

"In terms of coming back from that far behind, Howard did it back in 2001... to win the election," Mr Scales said.

"[However] I think the electorate is a bit more ready to change government these days than what it has been in the past."

Asked about the poll results in Melbourne this morning, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said: "I've made it my consistent practice not to run a commentary on polls".

"The fact is, opinion polls will go up and down between now and polling day."

The most recent national poll conducted by Newspoll showed support for Labor had risen to its highest level since the 2010 election, although the Coalition retained a narrow lead.

That poll, which was published a fortnight ago, showed the Coalition was ahead 51 per cent to Labor's 49 per cent after preferences.

The Newspoll survey was conducted nationwide, unlike the JWS Research poll which focused on seats with margins of less than 6 per cent.

The JWS Research involved phone interviews with 3,350 people, giving it a margin of error of 1.7 per cent. It was conducted on January 17.

According to the findings, a quarter of voters in the 54 most marginal seats nominated the economy and jobs as the most important issue for this year's election.

That was closely followed by health care (20 per cent), cost of living (15 per cent), leadership (10 per cent), and immigration and border security (9 per cent).

Just 8 per cent of voters said the most important issue to them was education, which Prime Minister Julia Gillard has flagged as a key plank of her 2013 agenda.

Marginal poll delivers bad news for Labor - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

AUSTRALIA still has the most unaffordable housing markets in the world despite two years of stagnant or falling house prices, according to the latest Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

Ahead of New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada, Australia has the largest number of housing markets that are classified as ''severely or seriously unaffordable'', the ninth annual survey of its kind reveals.

The survey shows Sydney is the third most expensive major housing market in the world, with a median multiple of 8.3, following Vancouver in Canada with a multiple of 9.5, and, most expensive, Hong Kong where the multiple is 13.5.

Detroit, USA. $US479,900 ($A456,437).

Melbourne is ranked as the seventh most unaffordable major housing market in the world, with a multiple of 7.5. It trails behind London, San Francisco and San Jose in California.

The Demographia survey ranks the affordability of housing in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, Ireland and Hong Kong by dividing the median house price with the median household gross annual income before tax. A multiple of three or less is seen as affordable.

The measure for evaluating urban markets is recommended by the World Bank, the United Nations and is used by the Harvard University Joint Centre on Housing.

Historically, the median multiple has been similar in Australia, Canada, Ireland, NZ, UK and US, the survey said.

But restrictive land supply policies have seen the median balloon in the last decade resulting in more severely unaffordable markets, particularly in Australia and NZ, it said.

The most affordable major housing market was Detroit in the US, which had a median multiple of 1.5 reflecting the depressed state of its economy.

The affordability of Australia's major housing markets has improved from a median multiple of 6.7 to 6.5 over the past year, as Australia also moved down the ranking with 8 out of the 20 most expensive housing markets. Only four of those were in the top 10 most expensive as opposed to five in last year's survey. ''However, each of the five major markets continues to be severely unaffordable, reflecting vastly overpriced housing,'' the survey noted.

The last time Australia's housing markets were classified as affordable was in the 1980s.

The country's least expensive housing markets were in Shepparton and Mildura in Victoria.

Jess Cooke, 30, fears she and her partner David, also 30, may never afford to buy a house.

After travelling in their 20s, they are renting a unit in Chadstone for $1700 per month. ''After bills, I have about $200 per month for spending, he has about $400-500,'' she said.

''What I would love is for someone to tell me how the hell we are supposed to even start saving for a house? I have no savings, just $10,000 in credit card debt.

''If it takes three years to pay the debt, then another three to save for the house, that's six years, I'll be 36 - what about kids?

''So we will probably rent forever. Seems easier. Perhaps we'll buy a house once the kids are grown up and I've worked on a reasonable income for 20 years - right now it's $50,000 and his is just over. Yeah, the great Australian dream.''

Ms Cooke is about to finish a bachelor of business and is working in administration in a financial planning practice. Her partner is a chef.

Great Australian dream remains 'unaffordable' despite price falls

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Photo: George Brandis says the changes extend the reach of anti-discrimination laws to an unacceptable level. (Getty: Sergio Dionisio, file photo)

Related Story: Christian lobby rejects move to change exemptions

Shadow attorney-general George Brandis has described the Federal Government's overhaul of anti-discrimination laws as an ideologically-driven campaign that could be used to shut down controversial debates.

The Government has put forward plans to consolidate different anti-discrimination laws, in an effort to simplify what is considered unacceptable and how to deal with it.

Senator Brandis says the changes are too broad and extend the reach of anti-discrimination laws to an unacceptable level.

"When you drill down into this bill, what it really amounts to at its extreme reach is a law against controversy," he told ABC Local Radio.

"What this bill says is that if I claim to be offended by something somebody else says, I have a legal right to take them to court."

A Senate committee is examining the proposed changes with hearings due to begin this week. The inquiry has received almost 600 submissions.

Australia's largest media organisations, including the ABC, Fairfax and News Limited, have made a joint submission arguing against the inclusion of material that "offends or insults" in the anti-discrimination provisions.

It says many media organisations publish or broadcast material that some members of the public will find offensive at times, ranging from satirical programming to political commentary.

"Whilst these, and similar topics, may be offensive or insulting to some viewers, this does not make them discriminatory," the media organisations argue.

"Rather, the inclusion of such content within the national conversation is essential for fostering robust social and political debate, and therefore to ensuring a healthy democracy."

'Code of conduct'

In an opinion piece published earlier this month, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon rejected suggestions the new laws would ban offensive conduct.

She also accused some people of using the feedback process to launch a "vicious campaign" against existing protections and misrepresenting the reach of current laws.

"What should be clear is the Government is not seeking to regulate the type of language used privately between friends," Ms Roxon wrote.

"It is not seeking to change vilification laws, nor will it seek to prohibit people engaging in a discussion on political, religious or other topical matters.

"No democratic government ever should.

"But as a society we don't believe it is okay to make racist taunts, even if people laugh. It is not okay to bully someone with a disability because they sound different. It is not okay to humiliate a person because they are gay."

Senator Brandis says the Government's proposed changes risk breaking the long-standing community consensus on anti-discrimination laws.

"What I think we see in this bill is a very deliberate and ideological attempt by Nicola Roxon, who is the ultimate nanny-state politician, to impose a code of conduct on Australians... which goes way beyond where anti-discrimination law ever went before," he said.

The Greens and gay-rights campaigners are also unhappy with aspects of the laws, arguing it is time for some of the religious exemptions to be removed from the legislation.

But the Australian Christian Lobby has rejected the idea, saying it is important to maintain religious freedoms.

Brandis warns new laws could outlaw debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Photo: The first Newspoll of 2013 shows a six-point increase in support for Labor. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Support for Labor has surged to its highest level since the 2010 election, although the Coalition retains a narrow lead over the Government after preferences.

The latest Newspoll, published in today's The Australian newspaper, shows voter support for Labor has jumped six points to 38 per cent since early December, compared with a two-point drop for the Coalition.

After preferences, the Coalition's eight-point lead has been whittled back to just two points - 51 per cent to 49 per cent.

The results of the first Newspoll of this year have buoyed Labor's spirits at the start of the election year, although Finance Minister Penny Wong is playing down the figures.

"There's only one poll that ever counts, and that's the election," Senator Wong told ABC News 24.

"That's decided not on you and I having a discussion about polling, it's decided on who people think has got the head and the heart to run the country, and who's got the economic plans for Australia's future."

The survey was carried out after Labor ditched its promise of a budget surplus this financial year, something Treasurer Wayne Swan announced a week before Christmas.

Newspoll chief executive officer Martin O'Shannessy says the broken promise does not seem to have hurt Labor.

"Clearly most people from our polls didn't think the surplus was achievable and really didn't think it was important," he told AM.

"We're heading into the election year and we can expect the numbers to stay pretty close from here on in."

Clearly most people from our polls didn't think the surplus was achievable and really didn't think it was important.

Newspoll CEO Martin O'Shannessy

Liberal frontbencher Greg Hunt concedes it will be a close fought battle to win the election, although he says voters will face a clear choice when casting their ballot.

"It was always going to be tough, and I think that is the history of Australian elections," he told Sky News.

"The choice is really clear: the choice is between a budget which has been blown - programs such as pink batts, school halls, a general inability to manage - and a higher vision for Australia of resilience, of opportunity, of living within your means.

"The way to deal with this year I think is to recognise that it will be tough, there will be massive new spending programs from the ALP now that the budget's blown, there will be major new taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns.

"Our alternative is to live within our means and to give people that sense of possibility in their lives, and that'll be the choice."

Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson agrees that there is a clear difference between the approach of the major parties, adding that voters seem to be backing Labor's vision.

"If I can take anything out of it at the beginning of the new year, that people do seem to accept that there is a contrast here between a Government that is taking... the right decisions for Australia in the 21st century recognising the needs of a modern Australia, and perhaps an alternative which is looking back to some sort of yesteryear," he told Sky News.

Despite recording a six-point bounce in Labor's primary vote, Prime Minister Julia Gillard's personal satisfaction rating increased only two points to 38 per cent.

That compares with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's personal satisfaction rating of 29 per cent.

More people are dissatisfied than satisfied with the performance of both leaders, with Ms Gillard recording a voter dissatisfaction rating of 49 per cent, while Tony Abbott is on 58 per cent.

Support for Labor surges in latest Newspoll - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Adam Barber published January 2, 2013

When you flick through your favourite search, social media, and content marketing blogs, you probably don’t see many articles about Australia. With a population of just 22 million, web consumption below the global average, and e-commerce penetration that lags behind leading markets, we can’t quite claim to be at the centre of the digital universe.

But as we look to 2013, that could be about to change. Those of us who work in the content marketing space “Down Under” are seeing some great opportunities for local and international brands to drive awareness, engagement, and leads with the right content strategy. Recent signals from the government, consumers, and the business community all suggest a really positive outlook for digital content.

So, as 2013 begins, here are three reasons why Australia should be on your content marketing radar this year:

Newer, quicker infrastructure

The Australian government is ploughing $30 billion in public money into a major project to upgrade the country’s broadband infrastructure. The National Broadband Network (NBN) is not without its critics, but it represents a clear statement of intent from policymakers, bringing high-speed internet to 93 percent of the population by 2021.

If the rollout is successful, it will help change the way Australia does business, creating some great opportunities for content marketers in the process. This is, after all, a vast yet sparsely-populated country. Australia is twice as big as India in terms of land mass, but has just 2 percent of India’s population. Fast, reliable internet will make the country smaller, making it easier for businesses based in Sydney to find and sell to customers 4,000 kilometres away in Perth.

Mobile connectivity is also improving. Telstra, Australia’s largest Telco, expects its super-fast 4G network to cover two-thirds of the population by the middle of next year. Quicker connections mean easier access to social media, apps, and websites on the go, which will create more opportunities to reach potential customers with targeted content strategies.

Spending more time and money online

As our infrastructure improves, Australia’s consumers are already on the move, spending more of their time and money online. If we take social media as an example, they are signing up, logging on, and engaging.

Australians are among the world’s heaviest users of Facebook, when it comes to monthly dwell time. And when they’re on Facebook, they don’t just use it to share pictures of what they got up to on the weekend — they’re also consuming branded content. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of Aussies between the ages of 18 and 24 have “liked” a Facebook brand page (according to Exact Target). If someone “likes” your brand page, they are more likely to buy from you and more likely to recommend you to their friends, which makes a strong case for building a presence on Facebook and other relevant social platforms.

When it comes to online dollars, the Australian market has real growth potential. Right now, e-commerce claims a relatively small percentage of overall retail sales. But as Aussies who have grown up with smart phones, Google, and Twitter start to earn more money, that looks certain to change. Year-on-year, online spending is showing growth at 14 percent in Australia and could be worth $27 billion to the economy by 2016 (according to PwC / Frost & Sullivan).

Australia versus the rest of the world

The big challenge for Australian brands is to make sure they benefit from this growth. While Aussies are a patriotic bunch, it will take more than simply being Australian-owned to win their business, as foreign competitors lure them away with their modern, user-friendly websites and low prices. According to recent figures, 75 percent of Aussies who shop online use foreign websites and 45 percent of total online spending goes overseas (PwC / Frost & Sullivan), which suggests local businesses have some catching up to do.

Content marketing has a big role to play in helping them close the gap. Whether it’s unique product descriptions to drive traffic to the most relevant pages on their sites, how-to videos to target customers earlier in the purchase process, or customized info graphics to grow their social media presence, the right content strategy can help Aussie companies compete with overseas alternatives.

Some Australian business owners want the government to protect them from foreign, web-based competition and see the internet as a threat rather than an opportunity. But over the past year, some major brands have been raising their digital game, making big investments in their websites to ensure domestic offerings meet the rising expectations of Aussie consumers.

Harvey Norman, one of the country’s largest retailers, is expecting big things from its website, predicting $1 billion in annual turnover from online sales by 2016. David Jones, a department store chain, has just finished a major overhaul of its virtual storefront, investing in hi-res images and video and dramatically increasing its product range. It hopes its efforts will help to increase the value of its web sales from 1 percent to 10 percent of total revenue in the coming years. And Coles, one of Australia’s two dominant supermarket groups, saw revenue from its e-commerce site double last year, bringing in the equivalent of five brick-and-mortar stores.

As these and other Australian businesses channel more of their budgets toward digital, content marketers will be there to help them develop websites that are easy to find and engaging to use, social profiles that are relevant and regularly updated, and email campaigns that are varied and compelling. This is going to be an exciting place to be in 2013.

Want to find out more reasons why Australia is an up-and-coming region for content marketing excellence? Get first-hand info by attending Content Marketing World Sydney, March 4-6, 2013.

Image courtesy of Castleford Media

Content Marketing | Put Australia on Radar in 2013

Alison Rourke in Sydney guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 January 2013

Danger rating is two levels down from 'catastrophic' warning after two days of relative cool, but temperatures rising again

Australian wildfires: interactive map

Firefighters douse burning logs near Deans Gap, in New South Wales. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images

Australia is bracing for more potentially dangerous fires, with temperatures on Friday predicted to soar close to 50C in the centre of the continent and up to 46C in parts of New South Wales.

The return of the scorching heat follows two days of relative cool, during which fire crews tackled more than 100 blazes still burning in New South Wales and Victoria, and built containment lines for more outbreaks.

"We are entering a very challenging fire weather period over the next three days," said Brydie O'Connor, of the New South Wales rural fire service. "We'll have 40 degree-plus days in many parts, with a number of fires from Tuesday still burning. Add that to some very strong north-westerly winds and we've got a very bad situation."

A severe fire danger rating has been declared in a number of areas, indicating that blazes could be uncontrollable and fast moving, and threaten properties with little warning. The rating is two stages below the "catastrophic level" warning given on Tuesday, the country's third hottest day on record, when 300,000 hectares of land burned and many livestock were lost.

About 100 fires that began on Tuesday are still burning. One of them is at Deans Gap, three hours' drive south of Sydney, where 2,428 hectares (6,000 acres) have been destroyed. Part of the blaze is within two miles of a former military bombing range, unused since the 1970s, containing unexploded ordnance.

"Firefighters are treating the range like they would a home, something that needs to be protected, and are clearing a fire break," O'Connor said.

On Monday the average high temperature across Australia was 40.3C, surpassing the previous hottest day on record, at 40.1C, set in 1972. Tuesday then became Australia's third hottest recorded day. Eight of the country's top 20 hottest days by average high temperature have been recorded this year.

It is the first time the average high temperature across Australia has surpassed 39C on seven consecutive days. Daytime minimum temperatures have also set records. Sydney experienced its hottest night on record on Tuesday, when it was still 34C at midnight.

The heatwave is mainly due to a late monsoon. Typically, by January, the monsoon trough will have migrated south over north Australia, increasing cloud and rain and therefore lowering the temperature.

The monsoon delay has led to a three-week spell of sunny weather across the interior, which has allowed a mass of very hot, dry, air to expand, a phenomenon the country is predicted to experience more often in coming years.

According to the Australian climate commission the number of record hot days has more than doubled in the past 50 years. It projects that the number of 35C-plus days in Sydney each year will increase more than fourfold by the end of the century, and in Darwin from nine to more than 300 a year.

In a recent report the commission said heatwaves were likely to be hotter and longer lasting, causing bigger risks of health related issues. It cited a study in Melbourne between 1999 and 2004 which found that hospital admissions for heart attacks rose by almost 40% during heatwaves in which the three-day average temperature exceeded 27C.

Despite warnings about the potential impact of climate change, large sections of Australian society remain sceptical about the science behind it, including the main conservative opposition party, whose leader, Tony Abbott, once described the science of climate change as "absolute crap".

He opposed the introduction of a carbon tax last year by the Labour government, saying it would smash like a wrecking ball through the economy, and promised to overturn it if he was elected this year.

On Wednesday Abbott's deputy, Warren Truss, said it was too simplistic to blame climate change for the current heatwave and fires.

Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, at Australian National University, said that Australia, if grouped with developing nations, was by far the most vulnerable to climate change, so it was "vitally important for the world to limit the extent of the problem". He said: "Despite this in Australia we still have this fundamental debate about whether climate change is real and whether it's important – something that for all intents and purposes is settled in the scientific community."

Australians generate more carbon pollution per head than any other developed country, largely because of a heavy reliance on coal-fired power stations to produce electricity. The country is also the world's second largest exporter of coal.

Australia, which has a population of 22 million, is responsible for 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Britain, by comparison, with nearly three times the population, is responsible for 1.7%.

Australian heatwave nears 50C inland as severe fire threat declared | World news | guardian.co.uk

Jonathan Swan and Judith Ireland January 9, 2013

Peter Slipper's trips.

FORMER Speaker Peter Slipper could be jailed if found guilty of a taxpayer-funded tour of wineries using his government Cabcharge card, lawyers say.

''The starting point for this has got to be jail,'' said Canberra criminal lawyer Rachel Bird after reading the court summons for Mr Slipper, released on Tuesday by the ACT Magistrates Court.

The summons document alleges that on three occasions in 2010, Mr Slipper took a hire car to visit wineries that include the top-rated Clonakilla winery, well known for its $85 Shiraz Viognier. These trips and others described in the document cost $1194.

On one adventure in January 2010, Mr Slipper allegedly travelled from Parliament House to six wineries. He also allegedly travelled to wineries using government Cabcharges again in April and June 2010.

The documents suggest Mr Slipper holds a particular fondness for Poachers Pantry, which is famous in Canberra for its gourmet smoked meats. He visited the restaurant on all three journeys.

''Mr Slipper knew that he was not entitled to use the Cabcharge card to pay for the hire car fare, but he did so,'' the description of offences says.

Illustration: Matt Golding.

The rules state that MPs can travel at government expense only if they are undertaking ''parliamentary, electorate or official business''.

If a federal MP is found guilty of a criminal offence that carries a jail term of a year or more, they are disqualified from Parliament. Mr Slipper could face up to five years' imprisonment but lawyers say this is unlikely.

But a shorter sentence is a ''real possibility'', according to Canberra criminal lawyer Ben Aulich, who also read the allegations against Mr Slipper.

''These sorts of matters are very serious,'' said Mr Aulich, who owns a criminal law firm in Canberra. ''Anything to do with a fraud on the Commonwealth involving a breach of a position of trust in a systematic way, the first port of call is a jail term.''

When public figures are convicted of fraud the judge typically issues a severe punishment to deter others.

The former Speaker, who resigned from the position last October, allegedly filled in false information about trip locations and fares.

The Finance Department told Mr Slipper on three separate occasions between 2006 and 2007 that he should use electronic and not manual Cabcharge vouchers as they were more accountable and secure, the document alleges.

Mr Slipper allegedly continued to use Cabcharge vouchers because he wanted to avoid being investigated.

On Monday Mr Slipper was summonsed to face the ACT Magistrates Court on February 15 for ''three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the Commonwealth''.

Mr Slipper stood aside as Speaker last April after he was accused by former staffer James Ashby of misusing taxi dockets, as well as separate claims that he had sexually harassed Mr Ashby. Mr Slipper called the travel claims a ''complete fabrication.''

Last month, the Federal Court dismissed Mr Ashby's sexual harassment claim.

Fairfax Media has attempted to contact Mr Slipper without success.

Slipper summonsed for winery tours

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Photo: Federal police issued Mr Slipper with a summons for the offences yesterday. (AAP: Dean Lewins, file photo)

Related Story: Slipper served with summons over taxi vouchers

Related Story: Ashby to take Slipper case to Fair Work Australia

Related Story: Slipper seeks costs from Ashby lawyers

Former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper is alleged to have used taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers to visit a string of Canberra wineries, according to documents filed in the Magistrates Court.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) yesterday announced they had served Mr Slipper with a summons to appear in court in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the Commonwealth.

Documents released by the court this afternoon show Mr Slipper allegedly spent $1,194 on taxi vouchers that were used in part to visit several Canberra wineries on three occasions during the first half of 2010.

Read the court documents.

The trips allegedly occurred before Mr Slipper was appointed to the speaker's chair and while he was still a Coalition backbencher.

On the first occasion in January 2010, Mr Slipper is said to have visited five wineries and a restaurant in the hills outside Canberra.

According to the AFP, Mr Slipper filled out four Cabcharge dockets instead of one, and used vague language such as travelling between "suburbs to suburbs".

"He deliberately did not fill in the actual details of the trip and deliberately did not fill in the actual fare of the trip of $337," AFP officer Michael Turner said in his sworn statement before the court.

"His intention in doing so was to hide from the Department of Finance and Administration the fact that he had used the Cabcharge card when he knew he was not entitled to do so."

In April 2010, Mr Slipper is accused of using taxi vouchers in a similar way to visit three wineries and the same restaurant.

On June 27 that year, police say Mr Slipper used five Cabcharge dockets to pay for a number of trips, including to a winery outside Canberra, although he did not include those details when he filled out the dockets.

According to police, Mr Slipper knew his use of taxpayer-funded car transport was against the rules set down by the Remuneration Tribunal.

On a number of occasions in 2006 and 2007, the Department of Finance and Administration wrote to Mr Slipper asking that paper-based taxi vouchers stop being used in favour of an electronic Cabcharge card.

The court documents state that the department believed the card was a "more secure and accountable form of payment".

Mr Slipper has been summonsed to appear in the Canberra Magistrates Court on February 15.

He has not responded to the ABC's request for comment.

Mr Slipper stepped down from the speaker's chair in April after being accused of sexual harassment by his then staff member James Ashby.

The Federal Court threw out the case, although Mr Ashby's spokesman has said there will be an appeal.

Slipper to be charged over Cabcharge winery tour - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Rachel Siewert

Last week I tried to live on the equivalent of Australia's unemployment benefit – the Newstart allowance.

I'm fortunate that this eye-opening experience was temporary, but I was still very uncomfortable walking around with only $11.25 in my wallet after buying food and taking out some money for bills.

The aim of my week was to raise awareness of the need to increase Newstart and other allowances, by highlighting the struggle that job seekers face when living on $244 a week.

Many economic experts and social welfare groups have argued that the payments are actually so low they hinder people in their efforts to find work and move forward with their lives. My week has further reinforced in my mind the validity of their arguments.

I knew that living on Newstart wouldn't be a picnic, but now the week is over, I can honestly say that I do not know how people cope.

After setting out my budget for rent and essential costs – power, gas, phone credit, transport and food - I was left with a little over $11 out of the week's payment.

Eating well on Newstart was impossible, even for a vegetarian. I ran out of vegetables on day five, and by the last day was down to eggs on toast for dinner.

After talking to many people and reading new rental calculations released by the Tenants Union of Victoria, it was obvious that I hadn't set aside enough for rent or power, but I was barely able to cover the cost of food and transport as it was.

I had no financial capacity for a range of co-contribution for medical treatments, long-term bills like car registration or insurance, any form of social or sporting activity, clothing, personal care products, household items, savings and emergency money and so on.

If anything unexpected or out of the blue happened, even something relatively minor such as broken glasses, I would need to either cut further into the food budget or resort to credit cards, payday lenders, and reliance on family and friends.

It was clear from my own experience that life on such a low income leaves you extremely vulnerable to even the smallest of shocks, but this was confirmed by talking to people on Newstart, community service providers and financial counsellors.

All spoke of the emotional and physical toll that week after week without work takes.

Over 500,000 people are in this position today – relying on an unemployment benefit of just $244 per week. That's more than $130 under the poverty line; it's merely 45 per cent of the minimum wage and 61 per cent of the aged and disability pensions, which are also acknowledged to be too low.

The unemployment benefit was designed to be lower than the minimum wage so it would be an incentive to move into paid work, and it was supposed to be for a 'short time' that people would be on it.

As a result, it was never indexed or raised in the same way as payments such as the aged or disability pensions. Without serious intervention, it will continue to fall further and further behind the pension.

I'd like to think that living on Newstart is only a brief experience for most, but the fact is over 60 per cent of the people on the payment have been there for a year, not out of choice, but because they are desperate for work yet don't fit neatly back into the workforce.

The design of the payment as a short-term solution is badly flawed given the alarmingly high rate of long-term unemployed people in the system.

Long-term Newstart recipients are more likely to be older workers; have a partial disability or mental illness; face communication or language barriers or lack marketable skills; and have low levels of formal education.

During my week, I met single mums, older workers who have been retrenched, young men and women, people living with a partial disability or with mental illness, and migrants struggling with language.

Not one of them said to me that Newstart is what they want for their lives, or for their family. Many recounted the difficulties they had faced in finding an employer who would take them on because of their unique circumstances.

A person's capacity to improve their own circumstances cannot be enhanced when they are financial insecure, socially isolated and in housing stress.

Until these barriers to work are dealt with through changes to areas such as education and skill training, more inclusive employment attitudes and better arrangements for transitioning from the Newstart allowance into work, people will find it hard to get and keep a job.

Over time the Newstart allowance has fallen further and further behind all other payments. An increase of $50 is essential just to ensure that jobseekers don't become so entrenched in poverty that they can no longer actively seek work. How can you look for work when you can't even afford a haircut, decent interview clothes or transport?

Despite the usual noises made by some on the right, there is no evidence that increasing the single rate of payment by $50 will act as an incentive to stay home and not work.

Instead, a number of economists, business leaders and academics - as well as the OECD and Henry Tax Review - have already joined ACOSS in calling on the Government to seriously re-think its approach in light of mounting evidence that the current rate is contributing to the barriers to workforce re-entry.

I actually think it is insulting to claim that a person would willingly forgo employment to live significantly below the poverty line. People don't willingly want to live in poverty, be forced out of accommodation, become homeless, lose hope or get caught in the debt cycle.

An increase to the single rate of Newstart and other allowances by $50 per week and the application of the same indexation as the aged and disability pension would immediately relieve some of the most severe financial hardship caused by this low rate of payment.

This needs to be matched with improvements to the wider system of employment service providers that increase their ability to work intensively with disadvantaged job seekers and provide better support services to all people looking for work.

As far back as 2009, Secretary to the Treasury Ken Henry told the ACOSS National Conference: 'The tax-transfer system is the principal means of expressing societal choices about equity. The tax-transfer system is a reflection of the kind of society we aspire to be'.

I certainly don't believe it is okay to condemn people to poverty, to encourage shame and social isolation, or to punish them while they search for a 'new start'.

Years of both old parties stirring up fear about welfare cheats and dismantling our social support system has left ordinary Australians with a safety net so low that it barely functions at all. Is this the kind of society we aspire to be?

Senator Rachel Siewert is the Australian Greens spokesperson for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Issues.

How can you survive on Newstart? - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Video: Macklin challenged to join Bandt on dole (ABC News)

Related Story: Macklin says she could live on dole

Related Story: The Drum: How can you survive on Newstart?

Families Minister Jenny Macklin has come under fire for claiming she could live on the dole of about $35 a day - with the Greens challenging her to try it for a week.

Under changes that came into effect on New Year's Day, thousands of single parents lost their parenting payments and were moved onto the Newstart allowance - leaving some of them more than $100 per week worse off.

When asked yesterday if she would be able to survive on the dole, Ms Macklin replied: "I could."

But acting Greens leader Adam Bandt believes Ms Macklin - who is currently paid more than a $6,000 per week, or around $850 per day - would find it a challenge.

We asked readers if single parents need more than the $35 per day Newstart allowance to live on. Here's what you had to say.

This morning Mr Bandt said he would spend a week living on the dole "next month" - and urged the minister to take up the challenge.

"Once you take into account your rent, your bills, your food, there's not much change left over from $35 a day," he said.

"How someone is meant to improve their lives and get themselves ready to go and find a job just beggars belief.

"That's why the Greens, for some time, joined by welfare groups and business groups and community groups, have been calling for a $50 increase a week to Newstart, because at the moment people on the dole are living below the poverty line.

"It is not living. It is just barely surviving. It is tough to do and the Greens understand it is tough to do. Next month I'll spend a week living on the dole, on $35 a day, and I invite the minister to come and join me."

But Labor frontbencher Brendan O'Connor has defended Ms Macklin, telling Sky News that his colleague understands how difficult it would be to live on the payment.

He dismissed the Greens' challenge for Ms Macklin to spend a week on the dole.

"In relation to the stunt that's been announced by the Greens party Member for Melbourne, I think it's quite patronising to pretend that you can actually live the experience by living on the unemployment benefit for one week," he said.

Video: Watch Jenny Macklin saying she could live on the dole (ABC News)

Meanwhile Ms Macklin's office has been forced to explain the omission of the minister's "I could" comment from its transcript of the press conference.

While Ms Macklin's response to the question is clearly audible in TV footage, the reporter's question and Ms Macklin's answer were described as ''inaudible'' in the transcript issued by her office.

ABC reporter Ashlynne McGhee, who was the journalist who asked Ms Macklin if she could live on the dole, said she could not understand why her question was not heard.

"I'm surprised my question to Jenny Macklin and her answer were 'inaudible' in the transcript - the press sec's iPhone was right next to me," she said on Twitter.

Ms Macklin's office says at the time there was background noise and the comment was not intentionally excluded.

Sorry, I don't mean to laugh... but she doesn't have a clue. Let her see that, let her try and actually put her money where her mouth is.

Sonia O'Dea, who receives the Newstart allowance

"The transcript did not intentionally exclude comments from the minister," a spokeswoman said.

"It was transcribed from a recording done on an iphone of an outdoor press conference.

"The minister's comments are a matter of public record. We provide the best quality transcripts available to us to help inform the media.

"Of course the media also attend and record on high quality professional devices."

West Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert spent a week living on the dole last April to highlight cost of living pressures put on job seekers.

Senator Siewert said she was left with $11 a week after paying for food and rent, and she could not survive without going into debt.

"It's just ridiculous. [Ms Macklin's] clearly out of touch with the cost of living," she said.

"You end up going into debt. There's absolutely no doubt about it. You end up in a spiral of poverty.

"She's so out of touch with reality. If that's what she truly believes it's an embarrassment."

Macklin 'unrealistic'

Video: Bandt says he will live on the dole for a week (ABC News)

Single mother Belinda Love, from Melbourne, received the single parent's payment until yesterday. She is now on Newstart and worried about becoming homeless.

"I don't know what Jenny Macklin is thinking because I don't know how she would survive," she said.

"She's unrealistic. She needs to come and have a go at it, have a go and see how she survives."

Ms Love told ABC radio's AM program she has been struggling to make ends meet.

"We'll be lucky to even just pay the rent and pay bills and stuff. I'm already struggling with bills now," she said.

"I've had to go to a local community centre just before Christmas for $800 worth of school fees and I've a $400 cheque written out for me because I had to have $800 just before Christmas.

"There's just no way. You can't do it."

Perth woman Sonia O'Dea has had a lot longer to adapt to the Newstart allowance, after being shifted off the single parent's payment several years ago.

She said she survives on the $540 a fortnight by taking out short-term loans and taking in boarders.

"I have used the pay day loan systems and the interest rates are at like 97 per cent, but they're the only people that will lend to me," she said.

"So when I get caught out and have no money I go and borrow from them, I pay back at exorbitant rates, but it's just sometimes the only way to get through to pay your rent one week or to pay for bills or whatever might have come up."

She also believes Ms Macklin would struggle to live on $35 a day.

"Sorry, I don't mean to laugh... but she doesn't have a clue. Let her see that, let her try and actually put her money where her mouth is," she said.

Salvos spokesman Major Bruce Harmer says even if Ms Macklin did live on the dole for a week, she would be able to go back to her highly-paid job.

"It's a great challenge for Jenny to do that, but Jenny will always have in the back of her mind that in a short space of time she'll be able to go back to normal," he said.

"It's not the same, and I'm sure she would meet the challenge, because she knows she can pay her bills later."

Macklin challenged to live on dole for a week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Max Blenkin From: AAP January 01, 2013 12:09AM

ALMOST three decades on, the Hawke-Keating government of the mid 1980s still retains its reputation as a reformist administration.

So what was it actually like to be there in those heady days?

Susan Ryan, a minister in the government, recalls there was a sense of history at play.

"We did from the beginning have a sense that it was a big opportunity for us as a Labor government to do big things," she told reporters at the launch of the cabinet papers for 1984-85.

"Some of our ministers had been in the Whitlam government and had been quite scarred by the short and tumultuous term of that government."

Ryan was senator for the Australian Capital Territory from 1975-87. Following Labor's election in 1983, she became minister for education and youth affairs and minister assisting the prime minister for the status of women.

She quit federal politics in December 1987 and is currently the inaugural age discrimination commissioner with the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Bob Hawke led Labor to victory in March 1983, ousting the coalition government of Malcolm Fraser.

Often referred to as a man-of-the-people, Hawke entered 1984 with a spectacularly high approval rating of 70 per cent, facing Andrew Peacock who headed a fractious coalition.

Labor's healthy lead in the opinion polls - 54-40 per cent - is something its modern-day counterpart can only dream about.

Despite this enviable electoral support, Labor wasn't on easy street, Ryan recalls.

The economy wasn't performing well. Unemployment and inflation were being pushed up by rising wages designed to cover cost-of-living pressures. Despite a floating dollar that prompted a rapid devaluation, the nation's balance of trade was bad and getting worse.

On the back of Hawke's popularity and dissatisfaction with the coalition, Labor had romped home at the 1983 election. It expected the December 1984 ballot to be a rerun, but that's not how it turned out.

Hawke was distracted by personal anguish having learned his daughter Rosslyn was addicted to heroin. As well, Peacock performed better than most pundits had expected.

"We did get back quite well, but it was a quite scary episode," Ryan said.

"However, we did not pull back at all on our program of reform and it did not make us more risk averse or more cautious."

The biggest challenge was the need to reform the tax system.

Ryan said cabinet discussion of tax reform was one of the most exciting periods of her time in politics.

"The discussions sometimes went all night," she said.

"They were at a very high level of intensity because there were lots of diverse views."

Ryan said she was swayed to the merits of Keating's Option C - a goods and services tax set at 12.5 per cent on everything, compensated by improvements in welfare benefits and pensions.

"Keating really led the charge and really instructed us all.

"He was at his best. He was fantastic. He explained all of these complex things. He'd be very dramatic, he would always stand up, his arms would be flailing around, he'd draw graphs and diagrams about what would happen."

Ryan found the then treasurer's argument totally persuasive, saying he educated the cabinet and the community about how the tax system worked and why it had to be reformed.

"He even educated those highly-educated members of the cabinet who were Rhodes scholars and the like, excepting, of course, prime minister Hawke, a Rhodes scholar who of course did know as much as Paul did about it."

A high point for Ryan was achieving progress on affirmative action at a time when few women held senior positions in the workforce.

Despite vehement opposition and dire predictions that the Sex Discrimination Act would destroy family life, Christianity and much more more, it was implemented without a significant struggle.

Ryan's low point was the reintroduction of university fees, a significant backtrack on the former Whitlam government which abolished tertiary fees in 1974.

Her "unreconstructed Whitlamite position" on fees was not shared in cabinet.

"The economic rationalists considered my position to be that not only of a dinosaur, but an innumerate dinosaur," she said.

Ryan said the government decided not to proceed with a plan to impose a $1400 fee at that time, but, once started, the debate about fees never went away.

"I won a couple of battles in the following two years. I lost the war."

In 1987, "some innocent little thing" called the administration charge ($250 for all tertiary students) was introduced.

"It was the thin edge of the wedge."

Subsequently, education minister John Dawkins oversaw the introduction of the Higher Education Contributions Scheme which still operates to this day.

Ryan said Whitlam's policy of ending university fees had allowed many women, who had left school at 15 or 17 and who never contemplated going to university because of the cost, to gain professional qualifications as mature-age students.

Whitlam still gets letters from women saying "if I hadn't been able to go to university my life would have been unliveable, but I got these professional qualifications".

"There was an important social impact," Ryan said.

Hawke Labor set about reform with zeal | News.com.au

Damien Murphy January 1, 2013

Cabinet records

Bob Hawke and Paul Keating at the 1985 tax summit.

THE beginning of the end of a beautiful friendship between prime minister Bob Hawke and treasurer Paul Keating in 1985 is revealed in cabinet documents released by the National Archives.

Cabinet strongly backed Mr Keating's tax reform centrepiece - a consumption tax - but Mr Hawke, although an initial supporter, baulked amid opposition from unions, the welfare lobby and business and pulled the rug from under his treasurer. It was John Howard, 15 years later, who was to introduce a GST.

Mr Hawke's popularity was still high in 1985. He had just won a second election but it was Mr Keating who did the government's heavy lifting. The treasurer drove economic reforms - cabinet approved strict budget controls, increased bank competition and eased controls on foreign investment - but tax reform was perhaps Mr Keating's strongest motivation.

On May 12, 1985, cabinet endorsed a draft white paper on options for tax reform. The paper recommended ''option C'' - a reduction in marginal income tax rates, to be offset by a broad-based consumption tax.

Two months later, Mr Hawke fulfilled an election promise by holding a national tax summit. On July 8, Mr Keating briefed cabinet on the summit outcomes, noting that Mr Hawke had indicated in the final session that there seemed to be general support for a number of positions, including a 12.5 per cent consumption tax on services.

But on August 12 cabinet agreed that ''the Treasurer announce as soon as practicable that … the government would not consider further implementation of a tax on services''.

Behind closed doors, Mr Keating had lost the battle. It was, said then education minister Susan Ryan, the beginning of the end.

''Afterwards, there was a lot of unhappiness. I think you could say the outcome of the tax summit and the dropping of option C did start to lead to the divergence of views between Hawke and Keating,'' she said during an address to an audience at the National Archives last month.

''In many ways, as you know, they were a real power team but their views did diverge. I think you could trace the beginning of that divergence to the failure to proceed with option C.''

Mr Keating walked into Parliament on September 19 with a new tax package, suggesting that ''few of the people in the top bracket have paid the 60 cents in the dollar asked of them. They have arranged their affairs to evade, avoid or minimise that liability. Instead, their share of the burden has been carried by ordinary middle-income Australians.''

There was no consumption tax, but there were new taxes on fringe benefits and capital gains, wholesale tax was streamlined and a range of other measures were introduced.

But if tax reform proved to be thorny, the cabinet documents show that the Hawke government's honeymoon was starting to fade.

With widespread concern over nuclear tests in the South Pacific, the French government's sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand and the Lange government's ban on US warship visits to NZ, Mr Hawke had to somehow handle a commitment by the Fraser government to the Americans to allow MX missiles to land in Australian waters.

There were also sensitive espionage matters to deal with: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officers threatened to strike over being transferred from Melbourne to Canberra, and cabinet disarmed the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and stopped them undertaking training exercises after officers made the service look foolish in a bungled ''dry run'' exercise in Melbourne's Sheraton Hotel.

How the Hawke-Keating team unravelled over tax