Ben Raue Thursday 30 April 2015

If small parties want to win Senate seats, they can still do it without group voting tickets. Proposed reforms actually would make them accountable to voters

Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The Senate is a key part of Australia’s democracy, but the electoral system used to elect the Senate is broken, and reform is urgently needed to ensure that the Senate is able to continue to democratically represent the Australian people.

Under the current system, a number of seats are effectively decided not by the popular vote, but by a “preference lottery” where backroom deals can deliver power to a candidate with a miniscule vote.

A proposed change to the system, agreed to by a parliamentary committee in 2014, would fix this problem.

The proposed Senate electoral reform would eliminate the power of parties to automatically direct their voters’ preferences (using “group voting tickets”) without their knowledge.

It defies belief that the Liberals would lock themselves into a hostile Senate David Leyonhjelm

Changing the system to lock out minor parties isn’t an improvement to our democracy, and could be a disaster for the Coalition government Read more

Voters could instead direct their own preferences, and if parties want to influence those preferences they could give advice by handing out how-to-vote cards – advice voters would be free to accept or reject, as in the House of Representatives.

This reform would also make it much easier to cast a formal below-the-line vote.

The current system has allowed parties to direct preferences in ways that their voters don’t understand, or wouldn’t endorse. When very few people see your preferences, it’s easy to play political games and direct preferences to candidates who don’t align with your principles.

In recent years, small parties have gotten better at swapping preferences amongst themselves, often amongst parties with opposite ideologies. This has allowed micro-party candidates to leapfrog candidates with much larger votes and win seats on tiny votes.

Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts party, for example, only polled 0.51% of the primary vote in Victoria in 2013, and defeated candidates from nine other parties who polled more votes but didn’t win a seat.

Often the winner of this “preference lottery” is decided by the precise order in which candidates are knocked out, and ephemeral matters such as the appeal of a party’s name and their position on the ballot paper.

With this lottery allowing candidates to win with miniscule votes, it’s encouraged more and more parties to register and run more candidates. In 2013, the number of registered parties more than doubled to 54, up from 25 in 2010.

This results in bigger ballot papers, making it harder for voters to find their preferred party, and increasing the value of drawing a position near the front of the ballot paper.

The preference lottery also tends to produce a large number of points in the count where a very small number of votes can change the result. In 2013, a gap of 14 votes between two candidates (neither of whom had any chance of winning) was critical to how two Senate seats were filled in Western Australia. This triggered a state-wide recount, which then ended up with a very costly Senate re-election.

This problem will continue to get worse, as more people see their chance of striking it lucky and winning six years in the Senate as the grand prize. The problem would be even more extreme if there was a double dissolution, where the quota would be halved and more candidates would be elected on even smaller votes.

The proposed reform maintains the Senate’s proportional representation system, which allows minority parties such as the Greens and Palmer United party to win seats. Preferences will still matter, but those preferences will be in the hands of voters, not backroom party apparatchiks.

This system has existed in New South Wales since the 2003 election, after the 1999 election saw a huge number of parties registered, and candidates with no public profile elected. It has worked very well and a number of small parties have still won seats. The Greens, the Christian Democratic party and the Shooters and Fishers regularly win seats, and the Animal Justice party recently won their first seat under this system.

The current ticket voting system doesn’t just allow small parties to win on a negligible vote – it also allows the major parties to act in concert to lock out rivals.

In the past, the Senate preference system was used by the major parties to lock out alternative voices, with the Coalition and Labor working in concert in 1984 to preference each other over Nuclear Disarmament Party candidates such as Peter Garrett. Victorian Labor acted in a similar way when they preference Steve Fielding ahead of the Greens in 2004.

The proposed reform would still allow small parties to win seats in the parliament. Estimates suggest that the Liberal Democratic party and the Palmer United party would have still won seats, and Nick Xenophon may well have elected a second candidate on his ticket.

We don’t know how the changed system would affect the way parties work, and who would end up in the balance of power – we may well see a consolidation of tiny parties, as striking backroom preference deals becomes less important, and winning votes becomes more important.

If small parties want to win seats in the Senate without group voting tickets, it can still be done. It’s much easier than winning a seat in the House of Representatives, but to do so they will need to go out and talk to voters, and win a small but solid slice of the vote – and that’s a good thing.

Elections aren't lotteries and a Senate seat isn't a prize. Australia needs reform | Ben Raue | Comment is free | The Guardian

By Stephen Koukoulas 29 April 2015

Photo: For 2015-16, the budget deficit could be about $5 billion lower because of better-than-forecast economic and market conditions. (Reuters)

Despite the doom and gloom, Joe Hockey could well deliver a budget deficit profile significantly below what was predicted, writes Stephen Koukoulas.

In next month's budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey could well deliver a budget deficit profile significantly below the one outlined in the December 2014 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The reasons are simple - the labour market is performing more strongly than was assumed in the MYEFO, the iron ore price may have found a floor around $US50 a tonne, and the Australian dollar is close to 10 per cent lower than was assumed.

For the record, the MYEFO was estimating the budget deficit to be $40 billion in 2014-15, $31 billion in 2015-16, narrowing to just $11 billion by 2017-18.

For 2015-16, the deficit could be about $5 billion lower because of better-than-forecast economic and market conditions, while the 2017-18 budget balance could be close to surplus, depending on the spending and revenue measures that will also be included in the budget in May.

To the labour market first.

The MYEFO painted a picture of weak labour market conditions for 2014-15. Employment was forecast to rise by just 1 per cent while the unemployment rate was assumed to be 6.5 per cent in the June quarter 2015.

There are now nine months of labour force data for 2014-15 and barring some calamity, these forecasts are going to be easily beaten. Even with no increase in employment in the last three months of 2014-15, annual employment growth will be about 0.7 per cent higher than the MYEFO forecast. If employment rises by an average of 17,500 a month for the next three months, which merely matches population growth, employment will be a quite spectacular 1 per cent higher than forecast. That is more than 100,000 extra people with a job, paying income tax and spending in the shops and effectively helping to narrow the budget deficit.

Impressively, the unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent in March, which is well below the MYEFO forecasts, signalling lower welfare payments from the budget.

The MYEFO was forecasting the wage price index to rise by 2.5 per cent through the year to the June quarter 2015, and while data is currently only available for the first six months of the financial year, the current "run-rate" fits with exactly that forecast. In other words, while wages growth is presently subdued, it appears to be no worse than was plugged into the MYEFO budget spread sheet.

In other favourable news for the budget, the price of iron ore seems to have found a floor. Just last week, Mr Hockey suggested the forecast for the iron ore price in the budget could be as low as $US35 a tonne. Since he made that comment, the price has moved higher and is a little over $US60 a tonne as output cuts and market consolidation have impacted.

According to Treasury analysis, each $US1 a tonne for the iron ore price is worth an estimated $250 million a year to the budget bottom line. If Treasury assumes a $US60 a tonne level the bottom line of the budget improves by about $6.25 billion a year over the forward estimates compared to an assumption of $US35.

MYEFO assumed an iron ore price of $US60 a tonne, with the Australian dollar at $US0.84. In other words, that is an Australian dollar price of just over $70 a tonne. At current levels of $US58 tonne and an exchange rate at $US0.78, the Australian dollar price of iron ore is now about $74 a tonne, about $4 a tonne higher and a boost of in itself just under $1 billion a year to the budget. It is actually a positive issue for the budget now.

In addition to aiding the bottom line of iron ore producers, the lower Australian dollar is also a fillip for other exporters and for firms competing with low cost importers. It is a net boost to activity and inflation to have the currency 10 per cent lower than assumed just four months ago.

Also helping the budget bottom line is the certainty now of RBA dividends to the government over the next few years. The RBA is not only cashed up with the $8.8 billion Mr Hockey gave it, but the lower Australian dollar will boost its earnings and allow it to give to the government several billion dollars a year for the next few years.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the economic parameters to suggest the overall bottom line of the budget will be any worse than assumed at MYEFO - that is, the deficits should actually be smaller than was forecast because of the relative strength of the labour market and the lower Australian dollar, which has more than offset any issues with the fall in the iron ore price.

What may be challenging is the big spending policies of the Abbott Government, which have shown spending to GDP levels rising to levels above the long-run average.

If the budget deficit is in fact wider when the numbers are revealed on budget night, it is likely that the fiscal deterioration will be the result of changes to policy settings rather than because of any economic or market shock, which are actually better than assumed when MYEFO was put together.

Stephen Koukoulas is a research fellow at Per Capita, a progressive think tank.

Cheer up, the budget might fare better than we think - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Bruce Haigh  Friday 24 April 2015

Photo: Most people are fed up with Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten isn't much better. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

We have become a nation of individuals with a sense of entitlement, and are prone to narcissism, jingoism and chauvinism. What's more, there's no political leadership of any colour to turn this around, writes Bruce Haigh.

Brace yourselves: things are not going to get better in Australia, at least not for some time.

It is to do with our collective moral fibre - or lack of it - as exhibited by our politicians, public servants, captains of business and industry, senior military officers and the media. And the reason is selfishness, greed and immaturity.

The last budget, roundly condemned and rejected by all but the top end of town, was a poorly disguised attack on low-income Australians and those on welfare. Talk of Joe Hockey introducing a "moderate" budget is an admission that Tony Abbott's scorched earth policy has failed. To compound matters, no real alternative vision has been offered to voters, either by the Coalition or Labor.

The collapse of Australia's mining exports will see the economy decline in the absence of other revenue streams developing to overcome the shortfall. Australia is moving into recession and there is nothing the Reserve Bank can do about it, armed with only the crude instrument of adjustments to the interest rate. Insufficient provision was made for the future by the populist Howard government.

The same lack of forethought and planning has given rise to the current crisis in health care and education. Enter any Medicare office in a major centre and witness the confusion and anger. Talk to the staff to see how services and payments are being reduced. It is nonsense to argue a case that costs are spiralling out of control compared to 10 years ago. Together the costs have risen along with the population and proportion of aged people needing care.

The problem lies with a revenue base that is not keeping pace with the needs of the community. Cutting spending on health, education and research will not solve budgetary problems; it will only create further difficulties. Paranoid politicians and public servants should/must consider cutting defence funding, ideologically driven and exorbitant expenditure of keeping Australia free of the contagion of refugees arriving by boat, and the continued subsidy of wealthy elitist private schools.

The national debate about the use and conservation of water and best use of productive land is absent. The National Party should be leading this debate but it is devoid and bereft of ideas and policies to the point that it has seemingly welcomed coal seam gas mining. Its interest has focused on the chauvinistic concern of seeking a register of foreign ownership, which is irrelevant when laws do not exist to govern and protect the sustainable use of land.

There is no leadership toward empowering Aboriginal people. There has been no examination of the decline in social infrastructure that sees even the smallest country town affected by the ravages of ice, leading to dislocation and brutal acts of violence. We and our leadership seem incapable of coming to grips with child abuse, whether by institutions, government or dysfunctional families and predatory individuals.

Church leaders have failed to provide ethical or moral leadership, apparently more concerned with protecting their flock than with helping to support what should be our sectarian democracy.

Climate change denial by the Abbott Government will see Australia become part of the problem rather than helping find solutions. It has resulted in there being no national strategy for the handling and deployment of human and materiel resources for significant national and regional disasters as a result of climate change.

The media, now embedded in the political elite, has failed to adequately call the political process and leadership for what it is. Compared to how earlier generations of journalists would have handled it, Howard wasn't really called for being a racist, nor for being fast and loose with the truth. Rudd was hardly castigated for his arrogance and selfishness. Gillard wasn't called out as a hypocrite for selling out on what she maintained were her Left credentials, and Abbott wasn't really called out for being a bully, a racist, a misogynist, dissembling, erratic and an intellectual lightweight.

Myths have been woven to hide our weaknesses, to boost our low self esteem, to overcome our national inferiority complex. These myths have become self defeating in light of the need to honestly face our shortcomings and renew ourselves and our leadership. The myth of the Anzac is just that, and not something to build or sustain a nation on.

Are we really a nation of volunteers? I doubt it. We have become a nation of individuals with a sense of entitlement leading to ever increasing levels of corruption. We are prone to narcissism, jingoism and chauvinism.

It would seem that things will get worse before they get better. Already, Australians have turned away from mainstream politics; most are fed up with Tony Abbott. They see him as a clown; they are waiting for Malcolm Turnbull to take over. Few, with the exception of hard-core Labor supporters, see much prospect of Bill Shorten addressing basic and outstanding issues.

Until the Liberal Party can find the courage to replace Abbott, the country is adrift with the very real prospect of them handing power to Shorten, who hasn't a clue what to do with it. Abbott has managed, in a short space of time, to alienate many who otherwise might have been expected to vote for the Coalition.

Are we in for a growth in radical movements and expression of political opinion on both the left and the right?

Bruce Haigh is a political commentator and retired diplomat.

If we were ever the lucky country, we aren't now - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By medical reporter Sophie Scott Wednesday 22 April 2015

Photo: Over 350 million Medicare services were paid out by the Government last year. (ABC News)

Related Story: Health insurers to work directly with doctors under historic deal

Related Story: GPs to cut back on expensive tests in bid to save funds

Medicare is to undergo a major shake up, with the Federal Government announcing every subsidised test, treatment and procedure will be investigated to make sure it is effective and value for money.

Minister for Health Sussan Ley announced the wide-ranging review, saying Medicare needed to be revamped.

"It has come back to me through every single consultation with doctors that the Medicare system is sluggish, bloated and at high risk of long-term chronic problems," Ms Ley said.

"Patching it up with band aids is not a solution."

Among the measures, the Government will:

• review all Medicare-funded procedures, tests and treatments
• examine new ways to pay GPs providing care for patients with chronic conditions and mental health problems
• develop new rules to crack down on Medicare cheats

In making the announcement, the Government explicitly said there would be no GP co-payment or any plans to introduce one.

More than 350 million Medicare services worth about $20 billion were paid out by the Government last year.

Ms Ley said many Medicare items were no longer used or used inappropriately.

Putting budget savings ahead of good health policy will make it harder for doctors to provide efficient and affordable health services. The reviews must not be about cutting vital services to patients.

AMA president Associate Professor Brian Owler

Research from leading academics, including Associate Professor Adam Elshaug from Sydney University, has shown there are at least 150 ineffective, expensive or out-dated Medicare-funded items.

"Reducing inappropriate tests and procedures is actually delivering better healthcare for patients, ensuring safer and better health outcomes," Associate Professor Elshaug said.

"But it's also ensuring we save those dollars and those dollars can be allocated elsewhere in the healthcare budget."

During the review, the pause on indexation of GP and specialist Medicare rebates will remain in place. But it may not be permanent.

"I am open to a future review of the current indexation pause as work progresses to identify waste and inefficiencies in the system," Ms Ley said.

The review of Medicare items will be led by Professor Bruce Robinson, Dean of the University of Sydney.

Former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Dr Steve Hambleton will head the review into GP funding.

"We will look at how do we set up the health system to best deal with patients living with chronic conditions," he said.

It will examine whether GPs should be paid each time a patient comes to see them or whether they should be paid a lump sum, known as block funding, for patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

AMA warns against continued freeze on rebates

The AMA welcomed the Government's review, but said in a statement the Government's focus on budget savings was "frustrating".

The AMA said the ongoing freeze of Medicare rebates threatened to undermine the good intentions of the reviews.

"At a time when the Government should be increasing its investment in general practice, the rebate freeze will eat away at the viability of individual practices," AMA president Associate Professor Brian Owler said.

Associate Professor Owler said the reviews should not be driven by a push to find immediate savings.

"Putting budget savings ahead of good health policy will make it harder for doctors to provide efficient and affordable health services," he said. "The reviews must not be about cutting vital services to patients."

Patient groups welcome Medicare revamp

Leading patient group Consumers Health Forum said the review was a long overdue opportunity to modernise Medicare.

"We welcome the opportunity to join clinical leaders to co-design Medicare for the 21st century and better funding arrangements in this era of growing chronic illness," chief executive Leanne Wells said.

Ms Wells said a redesigned Medicare system would provide more patient-centred care.

The taskforces would be expected to report back with key priority areas for action later this year.

Medicare set to undergo major revamp; Government to review procedures, tests and treatments - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Durkhanai Ayubi 17 April 2015

Photo: Anti-racist campaigners clash with Reclaim Australia supporters in Melbourne. (AAP: Joe Castro)

The undisguised hatefulness demonstrated by Reclaim Australia is only a symptom of deeper social issues. We shouldn't respond with anger, but we should hold our national leaders accountable, writes Durkhanai Ayubi.

Lots of commentary on the Reclaim Australia movement has implied that we should dismiss the ugly and hateful demonstrations as the doings of an isolated pocket of society.

It is true that the numbers of people in the Reclaim Australia camp were not particularly huge at the nationwide rallies that took place earlier in the month, but it would be unwise to ignore the fact that many mass movements, however irrational, have germinated from initially fringe movements.

The next reason we should pay full attention to the sentiments of Reclaim Australia is because such thoughts stem from more ubiquitous general attitudes, even if they are an extreme interpretation of that attitude. When we have had a concerted political campaign, however opportunistic, which fails to dissociate the atrocities of extreme Islam from the behaviour and ideologies of 'moderate' Muslims living in Australia, we are bound to create pockets of society which feel it is not only their right, but their duty, to stamp out that threat.

And lastly, our 'patriotic' shift is likely to have material implications - beyond what some may dismiss as the 'hurt feelings' of the Muslim community - for our leverage as a nation in a time where powers are shifting.

The sentiment fuelling the existence of Reclaim Australia is one of nationalistic heroism. A quick look at the Reclaim Australia Facebook page, or a listen to speeches made at the nationwide rallies, makes it clear that the group feels it is the only one brave enough to take the hard-line stance against the 'Islamisation' of our country that our leaders are too politically correct to take. The lack of intellect and the endless contradictions that form the bravado at the basis of such groups can make it tempting to dismiss Reclaim Australia as a noisy but unrepresentative group, but I would be loathe to leave it at that. History and human nature should teach us that the only thing separating such 'fringe' beliefs from influencing the mainstream in a material way is economic hardship and instability.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that groups like Reclaim Australia gather momentum in times of fear. I believe that targeting the fear and irrationality that lies at the heart of Reclaim Australia can shake its existence, and that it is therefore important to identify the source of this fear.

One of the big myths at the heart of this group is that the Government is being gagged by political correctness to counteract Islamic extremism. I would suggest that this is not only untrue, but that the Government has sent the correct signals for ultra-nationalism to have its place in Australia by exploiting fear. This fear has been created mainly by a massive failure to separate the identity of Muslims from that of Islamic extremists - either for politically opportunistic reasons, or because of legitimate political incompetency, or both.

Abbott and his senior ministers have used many issues to stoke collective passions. If the Government is to be believed, we are staving off the "Green Peril" on almost every front, and Reclaim Australia's extreme response even seems warranted.

Before it even took office, the Liberal Party's election platform was based on its race to the bottom approach to the asylum seeker issue. Once voted in, it debased the issue even further than the Labor Party had managed, and for the first time, introduced a rhetoric of war, forging a connection in the public mind between border protection and national security. The loosely veiled insinuation in this rhetoric was the possibility of refugees from Muslim countries being terrorists, trying to slip into Australia unnoticed.

In fact, the threat of terrorism is so widespread and immediate that Abbott and our nation's Attorney General, George Brandis, have managed to pass through the Senate a suite of counter-terrorism measures which ultimately impinge on the civil liberties of all Australians - giving intelligence agencies almost unaccountable power, while diminishing the power of journalists and whistle-blowers. All the while, we have been actively involved in wars with little reflection or accountability in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East, which, ironically, create both of the things we have been whipped into a frenzy to fear the most - refugees and terrorists.

So while the Government has been vocal in creating the fear that makes Reclaim Australia feel legitimate, it has been deathly silent in the condemnation of the extremist sentiment which took place in the April rallies around the country. This silence sends the same signal as xenophobic policies. Both do our nation a great and lasting disservice.

Apart from the fractures this is creating in our social cohesion, we have a vested interest as a nation to ensure that our elected leaders take a firm stand on the hatefulness that is bound to give us a reputation as a backward nation not properly equipped to take our place in the rapidly changing Asia century. We would be wise to demand that our elected leaders, responsible for our prosperity as a nation, position us well to have good relationships with our trading partners, particularly as power shifts in our region.

Muslim countries, like Indonesia and Malaysia, are in our top 15 two-way trading nations and constitute a significant portion of our trade. The Abbott Government, with its opportunistic border policy, has already ensured that our relations with Indonesia are strained. But it is not too far into the foreseeable future that Indonesia will be more of a powerhouse than Australia. According to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study, Indonesia will have the ninth largest economy in the world in 2030, and the fourth largest by 2050. It is critical that as a nation, we invest in such relationships, and maintain mutual respect to seize on future opportunities.

The undisguised hatefulness demonstrated by Reclaim Australia is only a symptom of the deeper social issues which we face. We should not respond with anger, or engage in hateful exchanges, but we should realise the importance of its message in pointing out our social failures and we should look deeper to realise the implications it may have for our future. The first thing we should recognise, and loudly object to as a people, is the exploitation by our Government of the natural fears many people have for their security in a rapidly changing world.

Though it is hard to now imagine, we should remember that there is another way - a way forward which is based on nuanced and informed policy, which credits people with the capacity to be guided by intelligence and not hatred, and which is held together by a strong spirit of cohesion, not torn apart by fear, to overcome the multitude of challenges we will undoubtedly face in the future.

This is the Australia we should all strive to claim.

Durkhanai Ayubi is an Afghan-Australian social commentator and a small business owner. She has served on the boards for Writers Victoria and for the Spectrum Migrant Resource Centre in Victoria. She currently serves as an Advisory Board member for Melbourne University's Social Equity Institute.

Reclaim Australia is telling us something important - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Lenore Taylor Political editor Tuesday 14 April

There remains a disconnect between the PM’s new positive messaging, as it applies to the budget, and what his economic ministers are saying

Prime minister Tony Abbott and treasurer Joe Hockey: different stories over how many ‘losers’ there will be. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Tony Abbott’s “look busy, don’t look like a loser” strategy has stabilised his position in the opinion polls, but his reassurances to voters may be setting up another gap between what the electorate is expecting and what the Coalition’s second budget will deliver.

When leadership speculation was rife in early March and the government was still struggling with the political death throes of savings measures from its previous budget, Abbott spelled out his immediate strategy to his party room with commendable candour. He was changing focus, he said, from policies the government was unable to get through the “feral Senate” to smaller things that didn’t need Senate approval, but would appear “meaningful” and “positive” to the person on the street.

Headlines about policies rejected by voters and defeated in the Senate were duly replaced by scores of announcements about taskforces on the ice epidemic, crackdowns on childhood immunisations, inactive bank accounts, country of origin labelling on food, codes of conduct for supermarkets and sod turnings for new roads.

It was a deliberate plan to ease the sense of crisis engulfing the government, soothe the party room panic and restore some semblance of normal, to use the short attention span of the 24-hour news cycle to the government’s advantage by filling it up with small, positive things while the large unsolved budgetary questions were considered in the background.

And to an extent it has worked. The Coalition still trails in the polls, by varying amounts, but it has improved from the total wipe-out territory earlier in the year.

But there remains an apparent disconnect between the prime minister’s new positive messaging, as it applies to the budget, and what his economic ministers are saying.

Advertisement

On Monday morning, Abbott repeated to Channel Seven’s Sunrise viewers his promise for the 2015 budget.

“The assurance that I give to your viewers, the assurance that I give to you, is that we aren’t going to tackle our budget problems at the expense of families’ budget problems,” he said.

Almost at the same time, on the ABC, his treasurer Joe Hockey was telling breakfast viewers the government was determined to achieve that same quantum of long-term budget savings as it had outlined last year.

“It’s easy to be popular if you say things that people always want to hear, but when you do the things that are necessary for the country then sometimes you cop flak for it. But, my God, we are in this business to do what is right for Australia and, personal popularity or not, it is about doing what is right … We need to undertake structural reform, we must.”

In an interview with the Australian Financial Review, Hockey again outlined his structural reform strategy – the unpopular savings from last year’s budget would “stay on the books” until the relevant minister negotiated an alternative.

“The moment you walk away from structural savings is the moment that you concede that you’re never going to get back to surplus,” he said.

Greg Jericho

Tony Abbott's confused pre-budget narrative has few ideas for economic recovery After painting debt as the most evil of economic bogeymen, Abbott now says Australia’s debt level compared with other countries is a ‘good result’ Read more

The prime minister isn’t explicitly saying that households won’t be worse off as a result of this budget, but he’s certainly giving that clear impression. But under the treasurer’s budget narrative there would be many “losers”. The losses might be more fairly weighted towards higher income earners, to increase the chances that they will be accepted by the electorate and pass the Senate, but households would still be losing things they currently receive.

The shift forced upon the government by the community’s rejection of last year’s budget is stunning – but it’s not clear whether it involves abandoning some of the cuts to government spending, or implementing the same magnitude of cuts with a fairer distribution. If it’s the latter there is surely an argument that a government still needs to lay the groundwork for change.

On pensions, for example, social security minister Scott Morrison is considering a proposal, put by the Australian Council of Social Services in its last three budget submissions, to tighten the pensions assets test and increase the taper rate so that eligibility for a part pension cuts out sooner. It could deliver similar savings to last year’s budget announcements, which included the controversial change in pension indexation, and would hit wealthier retirees, rather than all pensioners.

But it was, according to the Sunday Telegraph , rejected by cabinet last year precisely because it meant some retirees would lose their part pension (and some full pensioners would be forced onto a part pension) and this was seen as an even clearer breach of the prime minister’s election promise not to change the pension than a long-term change to indexation rates.

The government is now torn between waiting for a full review of pensions and superannuation policy and including some pared back version of the old Acoss plan in this year’s budget.

On childcare, Morrison is negotiating a new policy based on a model from the Productivity Commission which deliberately looked at how existing spending could be better used, and proposed that some existing subsidies should be transferred from wealthy families to poorer families. By definition, the scheme leaves some families worse off – particularly higher income earners, families using centres that charge more than a new “benchmark” price and low income families that have taken advantage of an existing system that provides them with 24 hours of care a week under the means tested child care benefit, without the parent having to work or study in order to be eligible. It is almost certainly fairer, but some households are likely to lose out.

Sussan Ley

Medical rebate overhaul could recoup lost savings from ditched co-payment Government expected to announce audit of fees paid to doctors for performing medical services Read more

And while the government has gone quiet on the GP co-payment, its determination to wring savings from Medicare remains, with the health minister Sussan Ley now considering a total revamp of the Medicare benefits schedule as well as the freeze on rebates, which doctors claim could usher in a co-payment “by stealth”. This could be a more equitable way to find savings than hitting low income earners with a co-payment for every visit to the doctor, but it is still likely to prompt a backlash.

Critics of last year’s budget would welcome a new-found fixation on fairness, if that is what the budget eventually contains. And fairer cuts would certainly be more difficult for Labor to oppose. But given that few voters would rapidly self-identify as unworthy recipients of government largesse, some pre-explanation would probably be smart – even if it interrupts the pre-budget season of small, daily offerings of “good” news. Alternatively, if all household budgets are safe from the budget axe, Abbott should tell his ministers.

Who will lose most from the 2015 budget (apart from the government)? | Australia news | The Guardian

By Chris Berg 14 April 2015

Photo: Strategies adopted in opposition constrain what can be done in power. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Bill Shorten as Opposition Leader looks as if he's trying to mimic Tony Abbott's example. But he needs to remember that a small target strategy only got the current Prime Minister so far, writes Chris Berg.

One of the unsurprising consequences of Tony Abbott's modest poll recovery has been the new focus on Bill Shorten.

If you've read one column on Shorten, you've read them all. The Opposition Leader doesn't stand for anything. He promised a year of policies but hasn't yet offered any policies to speak of. And (for a certain type of commentator) he's abandoning the Hawke-Keating legacy of reform and so forth.

All this is obviously true. But come on. Would you do any different if you were in his shoes?

Almost every incentive Shorten faces is telling him to stay quiet about his plans for government - to avoid making any potentially divisive statements or holding any potentially controversial positions. (I'll return to the word 'almost' later.)

This is perfectly rational. No matter what the opposition does - no matter how opportunistically or rashly it acts - popular dissatisfaction with the economy or society will be directed towards the government of the day. The opposition's job is to gently fan the flames, confident they are unlikely to be caught in the backdraft.

The last thing Shorten wants to do is get caught up in a debate about the specifics of what he would do in government. Detail is death. Better to keep the attention on Tony and his unfair-out-of-touch-just-don't-get-Aussie-mums-and-dads Tories.

Oppositions that have tried an alternative strategy - outlined detailed policies, even transformational agendas - have been torn down by incumbent governments, who have the entire bureaucracy at their disposal to fact check and nit-pick anything the opposition throws up.

Think John Hewson, Mark Latham. Whatever your view of their political philosophy, they both tried the big-picture, year-of-ideas, stand-for-something strategies people are urging Shorten to pursue. And look at them today.

So now tell me you'd do anything different. Don't blame Bill for Labor's fecklessness. He's just a company man.

In the simple model of political competition outlined in Anthony Downs' seminal 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy, political parties will delay announcing any policy for as long as possible. The winner will be the party that announces last.

But incumbent governments can't put off making choices forever. They can't fully participate in this game of policy chicken.

The best strategy is the one that wins government, and maximises longevity in government, and allows the most flexibility to implement policies.

The need to govern benefits the opposition. Government policy announcements helpfully identify what the electorate hates. So the simplest opposition strategy is to copy the government's popular policies and oppose the unpopular ones.

Abbott was an especially talented opposition leader. He didn't just oppose unpopular policies. He managed to make policies unpopular, seemingly through sheer force of will.

Shorten as Opposition Leader looks as if he's trying to mimic Abbott's example. Yet Shorten is drawing the wrong lesson.

Remember that 'almost'? The optimal opposition strategy isn't just the one that wins government. It's the one that wins government, and maximises that party's longevity in government, and allows them most flexibility to implement their policies.

The Abbott team has learned - apparently to its surprise - that strategies adopted in opposition constrain what can be done in power.

Voters expect some promises to be broken, as I argued in the Drum last year. Yet this is only true within a certain range. The public wants to know what they are buying, even if they have a reasonable tolerance for products that do not exactly match the packaging. Expectations still matter.

The Coalition forgot this. The Coalition did not prime the electorate for the sort of policies it introduced within its first six months. Having pared its campaign message down to the most memorable essentials, voters were surprised to learn that End The Waste and Cut The Debt actually involved large-scale policy change, not just swapping one party in power for another.

Even in government the Coalition tried to hold back the policy reckoning as long as possible. It disavowed the Medicare co-payment when it was first discussed in Christmas 2013. It delayed the Audit Commission until the eve of the budget.

I won't bother recapping how everything has played out since. But the legacy of that opposition strategy has left us with a badly denuded Coalition government. It is shell-shocked and weak. It is unable to pursue its own agenda. Now it grasps at whatever it thinks will keep it stable and in power until the next election.

A year ago the question was whether the Coalition was bold enough to tackle industrial relations head on. Today the question is whether the Coalition will ever feel confident enough to tackle the deficit it was elected to reduce.

No doubt Bill Shorten likes to imagine he can win the 2016 election. It's not impossible. But winning is only half of it. He needs to start imagining how Labor's small target strategy might harm him if he does win.

Chris Berg is a senior fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His latest book, Liberty, Equality and Democracy, will be published by Connor Court Publishing this month.

Shorten must start thinking about life after opposition - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Paula Matthewson 13 April 2015

Photo: Treasurer Joe Hockey's approval rating has dropped to 33 per cent. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Given today's opinion polls will be used to recast a negative light on the PM and the Treasurer, it would be fair to conclude their power base remains fractured and in danger of being shattered, writes Paula Matthewson.

Two opinion polls have emerged this morning, with results that suggest Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Government have improved somewhat in the opinion of voters but not enough to take an election-winning lead from Labor.

While Newspoll found an increase in support for the Government, the Ipsos poll claims a decrease. Nevertheless, both polls have arrived at about the same overall result - albeit from different directions - measuring the Coalition's primary vote at 39-41 per cent with 38-36 per cent for Labor. On these numbers, after preferences are allocated, Labor remains in the lead.

Both polls also found the gap closing between Abbott and the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on approval ratings. However, Newspoll suggests Abbott has closed in on Shorten as preferred PM (at 40 per cent compared to Shorten's 41 per cent) but Ipsos found the opposite with Shorten at 46 per cent and Abbott at 38.

Even with the Government's preferred opinion poll, Newspoll, showing a more favourable result for the Coalition, Government MPs would understandably be frustrated with the incremental nature of the improvement. PM Abbott has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at voters, ditching a wagonload of unpopular policies while hitching himself to populist causes such as food labelling and curbs against foreign ownership.

Unfortunately for the Government, the wholesale abandonment of tough budget measures may have been counterproductive. According to the Ipsos poll, 58 per cent of respondents said they want the budget deficit addressed as a high priority, but only 41 per cent saw the Coalition as better economic managers. That's not to say Labor was considered any better: only 32 per cent of respondents saw the party of the former Rudd and Gillard governments as superior in managing the economy.

Agitators within the Government could seize on the Ipsos results to rekindle leadership speculation. According to the poll, Treasurer Joe Hockey's approval rating has dropped to 33 per cent, with 58 per cent disapproving of his performance. This is an almost complete reversal of the Treasurer's standing in March last year, just weeks before he delivered one of the most unpopular budgets ever.

Now the advocates for change might promote a 2-for-1 offer, suggesting the only way to offload the deadweight Treasurer is to dispense with the Prime Minister. A similar line has been used in the past about the PM's chief of staff Peta Credlin.

It's likely too that the antipathy Government MPs hold for Credlin will resurface in light of news on the weekend that NSW Liberal state director Tony Nutt will not be joining the Prime Minister's Office as first suggested.

Nutt's addition to the PMO would have been good for Abbott. If the experienced fix-it man had replicated the role he played in former PM John Howard's office, Nutt could have taken on the enforcer part of Credlin's all-encompassing responsibilities and provided another way for backbenchers to communicate with the PM. This would have freed up Credlin to concentrate on political strategy and policy.

However, according to well-connected conservative columnist Niki Savva, Nutt was unable to obtain assurances of access - presumably to the PM - and responsibilities, which is code for Credlin being unwilling to accede to a power-sharing arrangement.

Nutt joins a growing line of experienced and respected political or policy talent that has either been rebuffed or shown the door by Credlin and Abbott since the Coalition regained Government. Well-credentialed departmental secretaries such as Andrew Metcalfe, Blair Comley and Martin Parkinson were given the axe early on. Hockey reportedly wanted to keep Dr Parkinson as head of Treasury but was over-ruled by the PM and his CoS. Next month's budget will therefore be in part a measure of the new Treasury head, John Fraser, who is said to have been Abbott's preferred candidate for the role, as well as a test for Treasurer Hockey.

In total, eight departmental heads have been sacked or resigned since the change of government.

Such personnel changes, and arguable losses of vital experience and knowledge, have not been restricted to the public service. A recent media profile on Credlin claimed she had directed that Tony O'Leary, Abbott's director of communication while in opposition, be escorted from a private election night victory party as his services were no longer required. Like Nutt, O'Leary is another former long-time Howard staffer, and both men are highly respected by the vast majority of Government MPs.

Those MPs will no doubt be wondering to what extent the Government's electoral standing could have been improved if those two "old hands" had been in the Prime Minister's Office over the past year or so, directing political and media strategy. This is particularly the case given Credlin's charm offensive following the failed leadership coup in February has had only limited success.

Since the Coalition's election 18 months ago, valuable corporate memory has been either eschewed or discarded by Abbott and his most senior adviser to shore up their power base. Given that today's opinion polls will be used to recast a negative light on the PM and the Treasurer, it would be fair to conclude that power base remains fractured and in danger of being shattered.

Next month's federal budget is the next leadership test for PM Abbott, but there is no guarantee it will be his last. Particularly if he continues to be saddled with a Treasurer who's seen to be incompetent and an adviser who's seen to have too much power.

Paula Matthewson is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. She was media advisor to John Howard in the early 1990s.

New polls but same old pain for Abbott - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Gemma Tognini April 9, 2015

Familiar passion from Tony Abbott in Parliament, but it's his focus that is the worry. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

COMMENT:

A federal budget is looming. Less than a month away, I feel it's not so much approaching like a bullet train, but more like a Broome camel ride at sunset.

Predictable, smelling like manure, but still drawing a crowd.

The conditioning started weeks, months ago even, with the not so subtle setting of expectations. The Prime Minister has already warned us it will be "dull and much less exhilarating"- a statement which, in itself almost warrants a whole other column.

Call me old school but I'd settle for a budget that actually (a) offers something in the way of sensible policy that addresses Australia's spiralling debt and sluggish economy and (b) has a fighting chance of getting through a Senate which is doing a sterling job of emulating Truman's famous "Do Nothing" Congress of 1948.

But the other fun fact about this budget is that it will lead us into an election year, which immediately makes the stakes higher, the propensity for policy risk (code for honesty and courage) lower, and the likelihood of Senate obstruction, exponentially greater. 

On a good day, the Upper House is as functional as the Russian front.

Heaven forbid the house of review should actually be that, rather than the plaything of billionaires and fringe dwelling interests groups who cook up and dish out astounding levels of dumbarsery for the rest of us to try to digest.  PJK was right - it's an unrepresentative swill.

For those interested in a detailed rundown of what's NOT being done, let me point you to Laura Tingle's brutal, incisive and devastatingly accurate piece.  Reading it, it is tempting to call it quits and retire to the bar for a stiff G&T. 

Much has been said (but precious little done) about the fact we have a Federal Government with a mandate to govern, but who is held to ransom by a few flag-waving radicals representing five per cent of the voting public.  And it's not the first time.

Which leads me to ask how it is possible that Australian taxpayers, you know, the people who pay for all of the stuff, have become the most powerless people in the country.   The Italians (I know, I know, ironic) have a saying – he who pays the piper calls the tune.  Not here. More like, he who whinges the loudest and runs a successful Twitter fear campaign calls the tune. Hardly a sound environment for detailed policy debate.

This week, there came a strong and united call from key business and industry groups who challenged all in Federal Parliament to, you know, govern the country. The group challenged MPs to lead courageously. To just lead.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Kate Carnell passionately implored MPs to stand on the shoulders of politicians of the past who had the guts for real reform.  Powerful words. Important words.

Back in In February, the Council of Small Business Australia said the same, asking both sides of Parliament to stop, focus and get on with running the country.

Imagine that. Imagine asking the elected members of parliament to actually do their jobs, rather than wasting time, being petty, serving narrow interest groups and demonstrating on a weekly basis what it means to serve up a shitshow of average. And I am talking about ALL sides of federal politics.

Against all of this I can't help but wonder, are we just getting what we pay for?

How much of this current environment is the result of us having it so good for so long.  Have we forgotten the recession we had to have? I haven't. I haven't forgotten my parents talking in hushed, worried tones about 18 per cent interest rates.  I seriously question whether our affluence has left the Australian voters conceited, entitled and no longer able to muster any sort of resilience.

All of this leads me to conclude that we have little over a year to have a crack at getting it right. By get it right, I mean consider – then act on - the fact that as an electorate we get what we're prepared to tolerate. 

We have both the responsibility and opportunity to influence those we vote for, and we shouldn't hold that lightly. It's a privilege. People around the world die every day in the hope of obtaining what we in our comfort take for granted.

And yet it seems that we're more likely to take action over poor service in the drive-through at Maccas than over an Australian parliament that consistently and spectacularly falls short.

So are we simply being served up the rotten fruit of our own apathy?

Think about it. We will protest for and against everything from the slaughter of dolphins in another country to a whether or not our Foreign Minister wants to call herself a feminist, and everything in between. But when was the last time we collectively drew a line in the sand and said to the members of parliament in whom we placed our trust, not just our vote, lift your game?

Granted, the need for senate reform is not a new topic for discussion and asking them to do it themselves is kind of like asking a recovering alcoholic to decide for herself how much booze is too much.  But imagine, just imagine what would happen if pressure were brought to bear. Consistent pressure from a wide stakeholder base. Imagine.

No elected member on either side of politics has an excuse.  They are there because we put them there (or in the case of the ALP, their union put them there, but I digress).  Mike Baird has shown that if you treat the electorate like adults, you can choose what is RIGHT over what is popular and still be elected to govern.

To some of you I may present as if I'm a cross between Pollyanna and Don Quixote on my very own, incredibly cheerful mission to civilise. But this isn't a joke to me and it shouldn't be to any of us.

I am a business owner of 12 years standing. I am a board director. I write articles like this. I am an occasional broadcaster.  Like many, many others business owners and CEOs, I carry a weighty responsibility for more lives than my own. 

My staff rely on my company (me) for their mortgage payments, their school fees, their holidays, and their petrol money.  It's a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders and most days I try not to think about it because if I did, I'd either hurl my toaster at the TV news each night or develop an ulcer worrying about the people in Canberra who, to me at least, give off the impression that they arrive at important policy decisions via a colossal game of naked Twister.

I don't have all of the answers. If only. But I do know that as with most things, acknowledging the problem, and beginning a dialogue about it, is a pretty good starting point.

We can better engage. We can debate, intelligently, and meaningfully and in parameters that go beyond 140 characters.

We can demand more from our MPs. We can raise our eyes beyond the petty and focus on the bigger picture. We can, believe it or not, hold to account those who hold our future in their hands. We can, and we must.

Gemma Tognini is the founder and managing director of gtmedia strategic communication, a corporate communication and PR firm with local, national and global clients.

She spent 10 years as a television journalist and chief of staff before starting her company in 2003. She is a Telstra Business Womens' Award Winner and sits on the boards of the Salvation Army (WA) and the Starlight Childrens Foundation (WA).

Federal Budget: we must put a stop to the political shitshow

By Emily Millane 2 April 2015

Photo: Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison has signalled that the government is prepared to consider other measures to rein in age pension spending. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Scott Morrison would probably have never foreseen that he would be openly touting the welfare proposal of a social services organisation. But it is hard to argue with a savings measure which is also fair, writes Emily Millane.

Well by the looks of things the government and the Senate are finally talking. One suspects this may have something to do with the fact we are in this year's budget season and vast swathes of last year's budget are still to be passed by the upper house.

Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison has signalled that the government is prepared to consider other measures to rein in age pension spending. It was clear that the necessary support did not exist for indexing the pension to inflation rather than male average weekly earnings. This was an important plank of the savings the government forecast in its Intergenerational Report, so the government had to look elsewhere.

Whether or not you agree with the proposition that pension spending is unsustainable, it is hard to argue with a savings measure which is also fair. So hard to argue with, in fact, that Scott Morrison is using such a proposal to navigate pension savings through the Senate.

The proposal, put forward by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), is to tighten the pension assets test by lowering the asset-free threshold for people who own their home, and to increase the taper rates so that eligibility for a part pension cuts out sooner. This also means that eligibility for the Seniors Health Card and associated benefits cuts out sooner too.

This is a prudent recommendation because it will only affect wealthy pension recipients - those who own a home (of any value), with additional assets of $100,000 or more for singles and $150,000 or more for couples. For Morrison, it is also appealing because it avoids the debate about whether to count the family home in the means test.

The direction we head with regard to the pension necessarily affects superannuation: the two pillars of our retirement income system are bound up with each other. Politicians generally do a poor job of explaining the interactions between the two.

Per Capita's modelling has shown that through savings generated by the ACOSS proposal, as well as tightening the concessional contribution limits for superannuation, it is possible to put in place a progressive tax on super contributions and come out with $950 million in savings.

In substance, this would mean lowering the amounts people can contribute annually to superannuation that are taxed concessionally, from $35,000 to $25,000. Tax on superannuation contributions would remain concessional - that is, lower than a person's marginal income tax rate - for all income brackets but those at the top on incomes of $180,001 and above.

Various economists, industry groups and think tanks have developed their own thinking about ways that the pension and superannuation systems should be reformed. Sometimes campaigning together, sometimes as a disconnected group, these organisations have been calling for change for some time.

As a result of these groups, we have now reached a point of inevitability about reform of superannuation tax concessions and eligibility for the pension. The government, because of the political exigencies it is dealing with, has been forced to catch-up.

This story also acts as a litmus test about the health of our democracy.

Firstly, it shows that Australia's civil society is alive and well. Ideas about the tax and transfer system are being developed and tested in the community. The media, especially social media, is often used to campaign on issues and promote debate.

Secondly, the government is scrambling to catch-up. Scott Morrison would probably have never foreseen that he would be openly touting the welfare proposal of a social services organisation.

At the same time the government is also dealing with its ineptitude in managing the processes of legislating. It says a lot about the government's hubris that it is only just waking up to the reality of governing with the Senate.

The Opposition, having been silent for so long, is coming to the party by holding consultation groups on superannuation tax reform. It has consistently opposed indexing the pension to inflation.

Civil society is leading Australia at the moment. As the Parliament breaks for Easter it might reflect on how it can do better to meet the community half way.

Emily Millane is a research fellow at the think tank Per Capita.

Pension deal an offer hard to refuse - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Daniel Hurst Political correspondent

Thursday 2 April 2015

Scott Morrison to ‘consider seriously’ the alternative proposal following complaints about the plan to cut pension increases laid out in the budget

Scott Morrison accused Labor of sticking its head in the sand on the issue. Photograph: Alamy

The Abbott government is considering limiting wealthy retirees’ eligibility to the part-pension as an alternative to its controversial budget policy to cut the rate of pension increases, the social services minister, Scott Morrison, has said.

Morrison signalled the potential back down after the government faced nearly a year of internal and external criticism for its decision to confine pension increases to the consumer price index from 2017.

Groups including the Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) have repeatedly argued the original budget measure would erode the value of the pension relative to wages over time, and the government should instead consider tightening eligibility rules for the part-pension.

Morrison said he would “consider seriously” the Acoss proposal because the government was “wedded to the goal” of a sustainable and adequate pension system rather than any particular measure.

The chief executive of Acoss, Cassandra Goldie, said the plan to target the pension to those who most needed it would involve “reducing the current threshold that allows couples with as much as $1.1m in assets on top of the family home to qualify for a part-pension”.

Goldie spelled out her alternative proposals in a statement issued on Wednesday. Acoss proposed reducing the cut-out point for the part-pension for couples to $794,250 in assets besides the family home, saving the government an estimated $1.45bn in 2016-17.

Morrison signalled his openness to the plan. He said he had asked the sector and crossbench senators “if they have better proposals to make our pension sustainable”, and he would “keep on the table measures until there are new measures to put on the table”.

“What I am saying particularly in relation to the pension is that the proposal put forward by Acoss today is something we will consider seriously. I am interested in getting an outcome and a solution here that delivers a sustainable pension for all Australians, not just those today but those in the future,” Morrison said in Adelaide.

“Acoss, by putting this forward today, understands that that is something we have to address. We can’t just stick our head into the sand which is what the Labor party appear to be doing.”

Morrison said the government was aiming to “get to a point where we can be in agreement about the measures that will deliver a sustainable pension”.

“That is what I am wedded to,” he said. “The government is wedded to the goal and our goal is to have a sustainable and adequate pension into the future and it is clear that if you keep just going down the path that Labor is suggesting which is to stick your head in the sand and do nothing then you will run the pension off the edge of a cliff.”

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, refused to say whether he would support the proposed changes to the pension asset test.

“I’m not going to give this government a blank cheque,” Shorten told the ABC on Thursday.

“What I would support is well thought out, detailed policies, which they haven’t put to us. The discussion in this morning’s newspapers is nothing more than Scott Morrison having a thought bubble.”

Shorten said there was still no concrete proposal on the table, but the government appeared to finally be admitting problems with its pre-existing policy to cut pension indexation.

“It is correct that Labor has opposed the government cutting the rate of pension indexation and today for the first time it appears that after nearly a year of Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey saying government policies were unfairly being targeted by Labor through a scare campaign, for the first time we see chinks in the armour of the government’s propaganda campaign where they have tried to pretend that somehow what they were doing was good for pensioners.”

At a later media conference, Shorten left the door open to supporting changes to part-pension eligibility, which would spare the government the need to seek crossbench support in the Senate

“Labor has always been up for making sure that we have the fairest possible system, but pensioners of Australia should not have to consider the Abbott government’s budget measures with a gun to their head which is cuts to $80 a week in pension indexation,” he said.

Labor’s families spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said the government “should put carefully considered proposals to the public and then we can all look at them in a proper way”.

The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said her party supported calls for “a broad review of retirement income instead of fragmentary changes to the pension.”

“This review should include looking as the assets test and changes to super concessions,” she said.

The pension indexation changes were announced in the government’s first budget, delivered in May last year, but faced a Senate obstacle.

Morrison has been signalling for some time that he was looking at the pension issue. He recently proposed reviewing the adequacy of the pension every three years in an attempt to win crossbench support for the indexation changes.

Morrison said community and seniors’ groups and the independent senator Nick Xenophon had offered constructive alternatives in what he described as a “coalition of ideas”.

He said the government would “work through these measures in careful detail and seek to cost them fully”.

Part-pension eligibility may be tightened in wake of outcry over cuts | Australia news | The Guardian

April 02, 2015

PM Tony Abbott found himself being lectured to over the renewable energy target by 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones. Courtesy: 2GB/The Alan Jones Breakfast Show Play video

Alan Jones had a long list of ‘suggestions’ for the Prime Minister today. Source: NewsComAu

IF Prime Minister Tony Abbott today heeds suggestions from the man known as his 31st minister, his predecessors will be stripped of their pensions and the GST will rise almost immediately.

Sports Minister Sussan Ley might be moved on, the $100 billion aimed at renewable energy projects redirected to drought relief, and workers aged over 65 given tax cuts.

The suggestions, which sounded more like instructions, were delivered during a 20 minute, largely one-sided radio engagement between the Prime Minister and Alan “I’ve known you for 100 years” Jones of Sydney’s 2GB.

“Every day when I come to work I think I am incredibly privileged to have this job,” said Mr Abbott. He might have had better starts to a working day than this.

The PM learned that an increase in the GST to 15 per cent was OK but a tax on bank deposits held by the “lifters” of society was not on.

The chief executive of the drugs-in-sport watchdog ASADA, Ben McDevitt, was “that thug” and the Prime Minister might have a look at his job, too

Mr Abbott was put under the pump on radio this morning. Source: News Corp Australia

Mr Abbott’s problem was he couldn’t dismiss the notions of Jones, a long and strong Liberal supporter, like he might other radio hosts, and his responses were mainly along the lines of, “ That’s a very fair point Alan,” and, “It’s a very, very good question.”

Should he disagree, the PM was set straight by a counter argument delivered “with respect”.

It wasn’t just this Prime Minister Jones wanted to target. He took aim at Labor’s Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and urged Mr Abbott to punish them.

“What they don’t understand out there is that Gillard and Rudd trashed the economy,” said Jones.

“Yet they walk away into the sunset with $180,000 a year for life. Should they be getting that now? ... There’s a change. They trashed the economy. Why should they be getting it?”

Mr Abbott explained, in effect, because it was the law.

Why can people get their superannuation at 55 but can’t get the age pension until 65? Jones then added, racing down another burrow. “Because super is their money”, Mr Abbott replied.

Jones read the heartbreaking words of a woman in a drought stricken area: “Maybe if more farmers shot themselves in public it would get some help from media and the Government.”

“Can’t we mobilise something to give these people hope?” was the plea from Jones.

Mr Abbott agreed the situation was desperate but warned, “There’s no easy answer Alan, there’s no easy answer.”

That earned him a double “with respect” admonition from Jones who then came up with a brace of solutions, one being a levy similar to that used to help Queensland recover from floods.

“Julia Gillard, for all her weaknesses, got out there,” said Jones.

“That’s a very fair point,” said Mr Abbott, also acknowledging the “terrible, terrible tragedy”.

When he pointed to the additional burdens from cyclones Jones intervened: “ But on the other hand, PM, we’re providing $100 billion between now and 2030 for a renewable energy target, to subsidise wing turbines and solar panels.

In pained tones he continued: “ $100 billion, to do what? To disfigure the environment and jack up the price of electricity.”

And finally, Sports Minister Ley, whose response to the ASADA furore hadn’t met the Jones standard, had transgressed further.

“If the minister Sussan Ley could answer the letters that have been written to her some time ago about these victims of ASADA — young Australians, who if they can’t rely on government who can they rely on — that correspondence is unacknowledged and unanswered,” said the broadcaster.

“Emm,” replied Mr Abbott. “Well Alan, they will be.”

Tony Abbott on Alan Jones: Prime Minister must make changes

By political reporter Jane Norman Wednesday 1 April 2015

Photo: PUP leader Clive Palmer (C) said he believed legal action against former PUP Senator Glenn Lazarus (R) and Senator Jacqui Lambie had a "pretty good" chance of success. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

Related Story: Jacqui Lambie registers new political party

Related Story: PUP could take Senator Glenn Lazarus to High Court

Related Story: Glenn Lazarus quits Palmer United Party after wife sacked

Map: QLD

Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie has described the Palmer United Party's plans to sue her as "hurtful", saying the party's leader, Clive Palmer, promised not to launch legal action against her when she quit the party last year.

The Palmer United Party (PUP) announced today it was suing Senator Lambie and Senator Glenn Lazarus to recoup $9 million it spent on their election campaigns.

Both have quit the party in recent months, with Senator Lazarus planning to serve out his six-year term as an Independent and Senator Lambie announcing she has formed her own political party, the Jacqui Lambie Network.

PUP national director Peter Burke issued a statement today saying the two senators promised to represent the PUP for the entirety of their terms when they sought endorsement at the 2013 election.

"Relying on those promises, the party spent millions of dollars and thousands of party supporters worked hard to get Mr Lazarus and Ms Lambie elected," Mr Burke said in his statement.

"They have now broken their promises and the party will seek to recover in the courts — under the principle of promissory estoppel — those party funds."

The party said it spent $7 million on Senator Lazarus' Queensland election campaign and more than $2 million getting Senator Lambie elected in Tasmania.

Legal action has 'good chance': Palmer

The PUP's leader, Clive Palmer, told the ABC he believed the legal action had a "pretty good" chance of success.

"It was a typical promise, a reliance on that promise and then they broke their promise," he said.

"The law is, if that happens, it's called 'promissory estoppel', you don't get any damages and you don't get any interest but you're entitled to your money back."

When asked if the pair had signed a contract giving this guarantee, Mr Palmer said "there were documents signed" and the two senators had publicly promised to serve out their terms with the PUP through the media.

Photo: Senator Lambie reads an email from Clive Palmer advising he is taking legal action against her. (ABC News: Emily Bryan)

However Senator Lambie has disputed that, saying she had no idea what documents Mr Palmer was referring to.

She has described the legal action as hurtful, saying Mr Palmer gave her an assurance that he would not sue her.

"If there was one thing he did promise me when I left the party last year, when we had a one-on-one, was that he'd never sue me and that he was very proud of the way I'd performed and he was grateful to have had me as a part of his party," she said.

The Tasmanian Senator said she had not received any formal notification of the legal action and was seeking advice from both her lawyers as well as Senate officials.

"Well considering it's April Fools' Day, I wasn't quite sure whether it was for real or not, but I certainly haven't been sent any legal papers or documents as such, so I'll just sit and play the waiting game," she said.

"I intend to get some advice, some legal advice, and I'll get advice from the Clerk of the Senate about possible contempt of Parliament because as far as I'm concerned, no one's allowed to interfere with the free and fair performance of a senator.

"In the past, threatening Members of Parliament with legal action have been ruled as a contempt of Parliament so whether or not this issue will eventually be referred to the Ethics and Privileges Committee, we'll see."

The Democratic Labour Party has launched a High Court bid to oust Victorian senator John Madigan from his seat after he quit that party in September.

Mr Palmer recently flagged joining that case but today he said his party was not "actively considering it" at the moment.

"That was one of the options," he said.

"We're not suing [Senator Lazarus and Senator Lambie] in relation to whether they can hold their Senate seat or how they should vote, that's a matter for them.

"We're suing them just to recover the funds that we spent in reliance of their promise before they got elected."

The ABC has contacted Senator Lazarus for comment.

Lambie forms JLN to give 'ordinary Australians' chance to run

On Tuesday, notices of Senator Lambie's application to register her party appeared in Tasmanian newspapers.

The advertisement listed the "proposed registered officer" as Jacquiline Lambie and the abbreviated party name as JLN.

Announcing the new party, Senator Lambie said JLN would start by focusing on recruiting candidates to run for Senate spots, but would field candidates for both federal and state elections.

She said she wanted to establish her own political party to give "ordinary Australians" a chance to enter politics.

"First and foremost I want these people to be able to put their state first," she said.

"I don't want people dictating to them on how they should vote ... and I want them to be able to make sure that their state always comes first and their country right next to that.

"That's why it's called a network, it's not called a group or a party. I want people to keep their individuality. I want them to do the best possible job that they can.

"Running around as an independent costs a lot of money. It doesn't matter how hard you try, when it comes to taking on the major parties, money-wise, you can't compete with them."

Photo: The Australian Senate following Glenn Lazarus's defection from PUP. (ABC News)

From other news sites:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Clive Palmer launches legal action against former Palmer United Party senators Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus
• News.com.au: Senator Jacqui Lambie registers her own party
• The Queensland Times: Want to join the Jacqui Lambie party? Just Facebook her
• Australian Financial Review: Clive Palmer sues Glenn Lazarus and Jacqui Lambie
• The Advocate: Palmer United Party to sue Jacqui Lambie for $2 million

Clive Palmer promised not to sue when Jacqui Lambie left Palmer United Party, Tasmanian senator says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)