Abbott does it again

The Labor Party had Mark Latham, the Liberals have their own boofhead, Tony Abbott. He was at it again today:

HEALTH Minister Tony Abbott was forced into an embarrassing apology - not once, but twice - and was also caught out swearing at his ALP counterpart today.

He had to say sorry to the heroic face of the campaign against James Hardie, Bernie Banton, and then again for turning up 30 minutes late for a nationally-televised health debate with his Labor counterpart, Nicola Roxon.

And minutes later he was caught out swearing after Ms Roxon took him to task for being tardy.

But the problems didn't end there.

The Commonwealth's plan to take over the Mersey Hospital in Tasmania - hoping it will shore up its vote in the marginal seat of Braddon - has been delayed by administrative bungling which Mr Abbott blames on the state.

If the Liberals are demolished this time around he could end up their leader. Horrible thought.

F-111s and Super Hornets

I didn't see the Four Corners last night but apparently they tried to do a bucket job on the government's decision to replace the F-111s with Super Hornets.

Look, the F-111 been around since the 1970's, we are the only country thats still flys them, so any upgrades are going to be expensive. Not only that, but spare parts are getting harder to replace. Theres a great discussion board here on military topics , heres part of a post by “ gf0012-aust “

Some of the points conveniently missed by Andrew Fowler.

- We need an interim aircraft as well because the centre barrel program has gone a little pear shaped
- the F-111 cannot go into contested airspace under current RAAF doctrine without an escort - as it can't survive. Its a strike platform - not a fighter
- that one of the big issues is that there are no spare parts for the rocket ejection systems. the current stocks decay at 2010-2012. After that if there is a catastrophic event, then there's no guarantee that the pilots can eject
- that their cute 2012 scenario wasn't gamed out with the F-111 where they definitely would not last - even against a short flight of Sooks (and that assumes that the indons have weapons)
- that the only country that is on our immedoate threat matrix is Indonesia - and they don't have the weapons for them, they don't get the requisite hours, and they certainly don't have more modern weapons (if any at the moment)
- the Malays are our allies
- the PLAAF would have to run extended missions to poke Aust - and thats how likely?
- The Indians also have Bears in the Andamans - does that mean that they're going to bomb us as they're within range of Adelaide and the JORN transmitters. What scenario sees the Indians waging war on Oz? Their focus of interest are the Straits and Myanmar.
- in light of the above - who running Sooks is on our threat matrix?
- the 2012 sceanrio was a joke. The Indons have 4 Sooks, so how would they go in on max weapons load against a full squadron of Shornets backpaddled by Wedgetail and JORN? They're outgunned and outnumbered as well as blind against what JORN and Wedgetail bring to the party.
- The indons don't have AESA either, neither do the Malays or Indons and all of them will be seen by JORN and SWR well before they get into intercept range.
The Rafale is even less successful than the Shornet on export sales and the French have been pushing it to everyone .

As expected the opposition are running with the story but the RAAF has responded. The RAAF need to whack this rubbish hard. They have a responsibility to explain to the Australian people, not just the politicians, why we really need such expensive equipment. Its Mr & Mrs Average taxpayer who pays their wages after all.

Global warming bullshit

American journalist John Stossel on global warming nonsense:

Poverty bullshit

The most disgusting bunch of parasites in the country are the professional welfare lobby. They depend on poverty for their existence, any success in alleviating real poverty is a threat to their survival. So they will find some whether it exit or not. Peter Saunders looks at poverty bullshit in todays Australian.

Another non existent poverty problem is the supposed gap between rich and poor. Lets examine this gap. Lets assume we have two people, one on $500 a week the other on $1000. The difference, the “gap” is $500. Now we double their income. The poorer person earns $1000 a week the other $2000, but of course the difference also doubles to $1000. Horrors of horrors! The gap increases!

I had to put up with this crap during my years in Centrelink/DSS. God I'm glad I left.

Baby boom

I think Mark Steyn is spot on to fear the fall in birth rates in Western countries, so this is great news.

More babies were born last year than in any since official records began, with the exception of 1971.

And Australians are having their babies later in life – the median age of a first-time mum last year was almost 31, while the average dads were just over 33 years of age. These are the highest-ever median ages for new parents.

The fertility rate – the number of children an average woman is expected to have in her lifetime – rose to 1.81 last year, up from 1.79 the previous year.

The Federal Government’s baby bonus – introduced in 2004 and now worth $4000 per baby – has been widely credited with encouraging Australians to have more kids.

Figures released today showed 265,900 births were registered in 2006, the highest number since the 276,400 births reported 35 years previously.

The fertility rate is still below replacement level, 2.1 but it appears to be rising. I wonder what the ethnic breakdown is?

Iraq Won?

Andrew Bolt brings to our attention this essay on why the war in Iraq has been won. Its very much worth reading. I remain an cautious optimist, wars are only won when one side gives up. So far, despite pressure from the US Congress, leftest media and the usual suspects, Bush has not surrendered. If Al-Queda is leaving Iraq then it may explain the increased fighting in Afghanistan. My guess is that victory will become obvious to everyone in time for the next Presidential election. The Left's reaction to an Iraq victory and another Republican President would be hilarious.

Iemma's coming private battle

New South Wales is in for exciting times after the Federal election. The state government has signaled several major reforms including the privatisation of electricity generation and selling off the ferries. The unions are not going the like that. The Carr government tried to privatise electricity several years ago but was rolled by the unions. The government is not going to announce anything controversial while theres a Federal election on, but after 24 November expect interesting times.

Bombs away?

It looks increasingly likely that the recent Israeli bombing on Syria was on nuclear facilities:

Syria erases its 'nuclear site'

By Mark Heinrich in Vienna

October 27, 2007 03:05am

Article from: Reuters

NEW satellite pictures show Syria has razed the site of what might have been a secret nuclear reactor under construction apparently bombed by Israel last month, an atomic research institute says.

Syria has denied illicitly hiding a nuclear site from the the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and said the only facility in the area in question was a desertification research centre.

In commercial satellite images taken on Wednesday and issued by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a suspected reactor building visible in aerial photos before the September 6 air raid had vanished and the ground underneath scraped clean, the institute said.

“Dismantling and removing the building at such a rapid pace dramatically complicates any (IAEA) inspection of the facilities and suggests Syria may be trying to hide what was there,” the report by the Washington-based group said.

Tractors or bulldozers could be seen in the pictures where the building once stood, said ISIS, which is headed by former UN weapons inspector David Albright and tracks nuclear activity that could pose bomb-proliferation threats.

What appeared to be a trench might point to the Syrians excavating buried pipelines running between the demolished building and a nearby structure still standing, which could have been a pumping station to supply water to the reactor, it said.

The Vienna-based IAEA had no immediate comment.....

Ominously, it looks like American forces are preparing a raid on Iranian facilities:

US flags B2 stealth bomber MOP upgrade

October 27, 2007 01:00am

Article from: The Australian

NESTLED deep in George W.Bush's latest $US190 billion ($210 billion) request to Congress for emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a tantalising little item that has received scant attention.

The US Department of Defence has asked for an additional $US88 million to modify B2 stealth bombers so they can carry a 13,600kg bomb called the "massive ordnance penetrator" (or MOP, in the disarming acronymic vernacular of the military).

The MOP is an advanced form of a "bunker-buster", an air-delivered weapon with an explosive capacity to destroy targets deep underground.

Explaining the request, the administration says it is in response to an "urgent operational need from theatre commanders".

What kind of emergency could that be?

It's possible that the US Air Force wants more firepower in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'eda as they skulk in their caves in Afghanistan.

But that wouldn't require stealth bombers - the sleek, black-skinned, radar-dodging darts of the US military.

The Americans own the skies over Afghanistan and Iraq and could, if they wished, blanket the two countries with all manner of bombardment from low altitude in broad daylight.

So what lies somewhere between Iraq and Afghanistan that might demand the urgent deployment of a stealth aircraft that can quietly drop a 13,600kg bomb and destroy something several storeys below ground?

The secret wine cellars in Tehran that house the illicit stash of vintage clarets belonging to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The vast collection of grey polyester suits and Iranian goody bags that lie in wait for the next batch of luckless British sailors?

Pat yourself on the back if you correctly identified the subterranean nuclear enrichment facilities operated by the Iranian Government in its pursuit of an epoch-altering bomb.....

I hope the Americans don't bomb Iran, not because I don't believe they are not developing nukes, (although recent history of US intelligence has to give us doubts) but because its not needed. The Reagan administration managed to bring down the Soviet Union, a far, far, greater threat then Iran will ever be without having to take direct military action. Similar methods can also be used to bring down the Iranian mullahs.

Fine crimes

The Sydney Telegraph is running a crusade against Lemma's fine crimes. They even have a petition. I'm beginning to think we should extend them, to include pie-in-the-face and tar and feathering of public officials.

Thanks, Sergeant

Thank you Sergeant Locke, rest in peace.

Australian soldier, Matthew Locke, killed in Afghanistan

SAS soldier Matthew Locke was a genuine hero who won high bravery honours before his death in Afghanistan, it has been revealed.

The Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) sergeant, fatally wounded in a firefight yesterday with Taliban militia in the province of Oruzgan in Afghanistan, was recognised only last year for his courage under fire.

Sgt Locke was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his fearless conduct in battle during his first deployment to Afghanistan.

The Medal for Gallantry ranks behind only the Victoria Cross and the Star of Gallantry in military honours.

The Perth-based father and husband was hailed for displaying "courage of the highest order" during an operation on June 2 last year, in a rugged area known as the Chora Pass.

While second in command of an SAS patrol charged with setting up an observation post over a Taliban sanctuary, Sgt Locke was recognised for numerous acts of bravery as his team faced attack from the enemy.

After trudging 10 hours up the side of a mountain, the patrol was called into action to support coalition forces engaged with Taliban fighters set up in a nearby valley, his citation says.

When the battle was over, Sgt Locke's patrol remained in place, calling in air strikes over the next day in an attempt to disrupt the enemy.

But the enemy fighters managed to turn on the small and isolated Australian unit.

As the Taliban attempted to overrun and surround the patrol, Sgt Locke, without regard for his safety, led a two-man team which found and killed them, regaining the upper hand and protecting the patrol from being overrun.

During another episode, Sgt Locke was subject to intense rifle and machine gun fire as he moved to an exposed area of higher ground, where he blunted the Taliban attack until air support arrived.

His actions ultimately ensured the patrol was able regain the initiative from Taliban forces and eventually leave the area safely on foot......

Going for the criminal vote

This is just disgusting, our State Labor government decided to reduce penalties against property crimes the level of speeding fines:

But Morris Iemma says he hasn't gone soft. The plan, announced by the Premier yesterday, will see offenders issued with on-the-spot criminal infringement notices (CINs) in much the same way as traffic tickets are issued now.

The offences, also including possession of stolen goods, offensive conduct or obstructing traffic, will not be recorded and any fingerprints taken will be destroyed after 21 days.

Only those offenders who contest their CIN in court, and are then found guilty, would see the matter recorded on their criminal record.

"It's an absolute disgrace," opposition police spokesman Mike Gallacher said today.

He criticised CINs as soft in comparison to fines meted out for other offences, such as smoking at a Sydney railway station, or driving without a seat belt.

"If I'm down at Central railway station this afternoon having a smoke and I get caught by one of those grey security guards, I get a $500 fine," he said.

"But if I get caught unlawfully in your car I get a $250 fine.

"What's worse, if I get caught not wearing a seatbelt I pay the $238 fine and it stays on my driving record forever.

"Under this government's proposal that we have now, if I pay my $250 fine for being unlawfully in your car, I'm a clean skin tomorrow."

This is a government which can't provide adequate public transport, can't manage hospitals and can't even provide enough water. Now they have given up on one of the essential duties of government; providing law and order.

The federal coalition government will lose badly in November, but without Howard to blame their own failures on, I expect the Libs will kick these losers out next state election.

Obi-Wan's libertarian streak

Ewan McGregor may be a closet libertarian:

LONDON (AFP) — Ewan McGregor said he is sick of Britain's "ludicrous nanny state" rules, which he said might force him to quit the country, in an interview to be published Tuesday.

Health and safety regulations were becoming "insane", the 36-year-old film star told the weekly Radio Times magazine.

The Scottish actor, who played the young Obi-Wan Kenobi in the most recent Star Wars trilogy, blasted the rise of security cameras and London's congestion charge, which forces drivers to pay to enter the city centre.

McGregor recently completed a 15,000-mile (24,000-kilometre) motorcycle adventure, riding the length of Africa with best friend and fellow actor Charley Boorman.

"Our trip opened my eyes to how insane the rules are in Britain -- CCTV cameras everywhere, congestion charge -- a ludicrous nanny state.

"If anything drives me out of the country it will be that -- not tax, I don't earn enough."

Costello vrs Swan

Well, it ain't the tag team match I was wishing for but it sounds good:

FEDERAL Treasurer Peter Costello and his Opposition counterpart Wayne Swan have agreed to debate each other on the economy in Canberra next week.

Speaking on Macquarie Radio this morning, Mr Costello said he had offered Mr Swan the opportunity for a debate at the National Press Club on Tuesday.

"I would like to debate him next Tuesday," Mr Costello said.

"I have offered him the opportunity for a debate, and I think we ought to talk about the economy and I think we ought to talk about the way in which he and Mr Rudd have opposed economic reform."

Mr Swan has said he will definitely be there.

I suspect it will be like watching Muhammad Ali take on Mr T, but lets wait and see.

Rudd's energy policy

Howard, Rudd tag team match !

Can't see this happening but I would love to see a Howard/Costello vrs Rudd/Swan debate:

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd has challenged Prime Minister John Howard and his heir designate Treasurer Peter Costello to a "tag-team" joint debate.

Mr Howard repeated his promise during Sunday's debate to hand over the Liberal leadership to Mr Costello during the next term of government, if re-elected.

"So with the debate last night, it's true, you should in reality have Mr Costello there for half the time and Mr Howard there for half the time, because that is what they are saying to the Australian people,'' Mr Rudd said.

"I'll be delighted to have a debate where they shared it 50:50.

"If they want to play it tag team, that's fine by me.''

My vote after tonight

My wife and I have decided. After watching this evening important TV contest our vote will be going to... Carl Riseley. The boy can swing with the best of them and the honey bun thinks he's the best looking male contestant. My second vote goes to little Tarisai the little cutie has a wonderful voice.

Lindsay, please come back !

Above Lindsay Wagner, the original bionic action woman, who was always a lady.
Below the new toilet bonking version.

I used to enjoy watching the original Bionic Woman. Jamie Sommer, played by Lindsay Wagner was a smart, confident lady who could take out villains but still remained feminine. So I was looking forward to the new version played by Michelle Ryan. After all theres been 30 years of progress, both technological and social. So can someone please explain to me why a TV show made 30 years ago can have a leading female character with more independence, control and assurance then the 21st Century version?

The new Bionic Woman has Jamie Somers as the eternal victim. She is lied to by her boy friend, controlled by sinister men, a victim of some male conspiracy. The original Jamie Somers was a professional athlete who played extreme sports and after her reconstruction punched out bad guys.

I'll watch a few more episodes hoping it will improve but I'm not holding my breath.

My Questions to Mr Rudd & Mr Howard

Andrew Bolt is asking readers for questions they would like to ask the leaders in tonight's debate. My questions are:

Mr Rudd,

How many degree cooler will Australia be after you
sign Kyoto?

Mr Howard

How many degrees cooler will Australia be after you ban incandescent light bulbs?

ta

Ralph

Battle of the Braless

I think Elle would have more success promoting her business products if she actually wore them.

Elle, Uma Thurman in battle of the bra

SHE emerged earlier this year from "The Body" snatcher drama involving title pretender, Heidi Klum with her dignity intact.

But Elle Macpherson has just been one-upped, or rather, out-cupped by romantic rival Uma Thurman in a new battle of the babes.

The Hollywood glamazon, now dating Elle's ex Arki Busson, trumped the Aussie supermodel, after wearing a rather revealing gown that left London society tongues more than wagging at the annual Fashion Rocks party on Thursday.

Comparisons with Macpherson were swift, after she scored raunch points with a similarly sheer top earlier in the week.

Two days later Thurman went tit-for-tat in a gauze-like Valentino stunner and the bra wars were on.

Seeing through the gown as a perfect opportunity to turn Thurman into a page 3 girl, the UK papers have had a field day polling people.

So for those suffering from John Howard v Kevin Rudd election fatigue, we'll leave you to decide - or just titter - over this seriously silly cleavage contest.

Dumbledore is gay

Yep, it official, Albus Dumbledore is gay:

HARRY Potter author JK Rowling has confirmed what fans have long suspected - the principal of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, is indeed gay.

Rowling outed the headmaster at a sell-out appearance at Carnegie Hall in New York. After a brief reading from the final book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Rowling took questions from the audience.

When a young fan asked if Dumbledore would find "true love", Rowling answered: "Dumbledore is gay".

The outing was greeted with gasps, then applause from the crowd, the Associated Press has reported.

Unemployment

Is this the best reason to vote for Howard?

Rudd's Tax cuts

Mr Rudd has released his tax plan which seems to be based on the Coalition's policy with the addition of tax rebates for family computers:

It would pay tax rebates to the value of half of a family's spending on computers, broadband fees, printers or other computer-related technology. The rebates would cover 50 per cent of up to $750 a year for primary school children and $1500 a year for high school children.

Mr Rudd said a family on an average income with two children, one at high school and one at primary school, could expect to receive more than $1100 a year. "If you are a kid today - let's face it - if you're not wired at home and if you don't have access to laptops and computers and software, you start to fall behind," Mr Rudd said. "We are widening the gap of opportunity for kids by not wiring them."

Brandishing a laptop computer, Mr Rudd said he was holding "the toolbox of the 21st century".

How are you going to be sure that the money will be spent on computers? The main group to benefit from this will be public servants.

UPDATE: Prof Neil Warren thinks Rudd is being a bit too clever.

Cars

The concept car I really wish Holden would manufacture, the EFIJY


Theres a slim chance it may go into limited production but I won't be holding my breath.

What I actually drive.


Mitsubishi Colt, mundane perhaps, but very practical. Economical around the suburbs but a comfortable drive on that long distance trip.

The Torana is Born Again!

Torana TT36

Something to bring out the petrol-head within:

Born-again Torana ready to rev up Holden fans

By Stephen Ottley

October 19, 2007 01:00am

Article from: Herald Sun

A BORN-AGAIN Holden Torana could be on the way, but you will have to wait.

The new General Motors car, with its roots in the Torana and a mechanical package developed from the VE Commodore, will be rear-wheel-drive like the Commodore, but smaller and with a lot linking it to the Torana TT36 concept seen at the 2004 Sydney Motor Show.

The new car - probably to be called the Pontiac G6 and possibly on the road by 2011, was first floated by former GM Holden boss Peter Hanenberger, who believed it the right vehicle to give GM a prestige rival to the BMW 3-Series.

Development is under way and General Motors vice-president of product development Bob Lutz confirms details first leaked through America's powerful United Automobile Workers (UAW) union.

Mr Lutz, speaking during a visit to Melbourne to check on technical work at Fisherman's Bend, says the compact will be in production within five years.

The UAW has already revealed the car will be built at a factory at Lordstown, Ohio, and developed from the "Global Alpha" mechanical platform.

Mr Lutz says the Torana TT36 is a good pointer to the newcomer.

"That's about the size we're looking at, but that wasn't completely worked out," he says.

"That was a sort of truncated Commodore component in that.".......

Unleash Australia Post

Australia Post is just ripe for privatization. The largest remaining government enterprise has just posted a record profit.

The main objection to its privatization would be its community obligations but they could be maintain in the terms of sale. Back in June CommSec Securities chief economist Craig James made the case for privatization.

"CommSec believes that there is a solid case to be made for the sale of Australia Post," the research note said.

"At the very least, the government should begin community discussion on Australia Post's future."

Letter volumes were in long-term decline and Australia Post's business was now centred more on distribution, delivery services, retail operations and financial services in competition with private businesses.

Contrary to the popular belief that its main business is to deliver letters, only 34 per cent of Australia Post's profits came from letters, CommSec said.

In contrast, 43 per cent of profits came from parcel delivery and logistics.

A sell-off of Australia Post would be the latest in long line of controversial privatisations including Telstra, Qantas and, in the early 1990s, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia itself.

The sticking point over any sale of Australia Post would be its community service obligations, especially for rural and regional areas, the CommSec report noted.

"Widespread community debate can ensure that current essential service obligations are maintained with a privatised Australia Post," it said.

"While it would have been almost an unthinkable proposition in the 1970s or 1980s to sell Australia Post, now the focus of Australians is on issues such as water security and the environment rather than getting mail delivered to your mailbox on time

Its extensive network gives it huge potential for expansion. Privatization would allow it to raise capital to expand its retail and other services. We would all benefit from an unleashed Australia Post.

The full report from ComSec is here.

Iraq

I was a supporter of Australia's participation in the Iraq war and see to reason to change my mind now. After September 11 there was no way the USA could allow the Saddam regime survive and Australia could not isolate itself from the reality of terrorist states.

John Howard explained why we went to war in 2003. Lets revisit the reasons and check the outcomes.

1)” That is the reason above all others why I passionately believe that action must be taken to disarm Iraq. Not only will it take dangerous weapons from that country but it will send a clear signal to other rogue states and terrorists groups like Al Qaeda which clearly want such weapons that the world is prepared to take a stand.”

Done. Iraq has been disarmed and will not be giving WMD to terrorists or anyone else. Critics say Iraq didn't have any WMDs at the time of the invasion. I say, tough. Saddam should have co-operated with the UN and the USA as he agreed to do after losing the Gulf War.

2)“There's also another reason and that is our close security alliance with the United States. The Americans have helped us in the past and the United States is very important to Australia's long-term security. “

Done. Our alliance with the USA is stronger then ever giving us access to top intelligence and military hardware. If Rudd wins the election he would be reducing our commitment to the war not ending it, he knows the importance of the alliance.

3)” His is an appalling regime: its torture, its use of rape as an instrument of intimidation, the cruelty to children to extract confessions from parents. It is a terrible catalogue of inflicting human misery on a people who deserve much better......

The removal of Saddam Hussein will lift this immense burden of terror from the Iraqi people. “

Done. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraqi people now have a chance of evolving a consensual government. Whether they actually achieve this remains to be seen but theres some recent grounds for optimism. In any case they have been given the opportunity.

No matter who wins the election we are at the tail end of our involvement. The American Surge will ebb and they, and we, will leave. Whats important is what happens next time. Because there will be a next time. Australians will be called to fight far away to stop the masters of mass destruction.

My biggest concern is still the bad intelligence on those WMDs. That makes me very wary of any military nuke removal exercise. Especially in the case of Iran but thats a subject for a future post.

Yet more on the Single Rate Tax (part 2)

Now from the right. John Stone:

John Stone: Unjust, unimaginative gall of withholding cuts

May 02, 2005

NEXT week's federal budget will apparently provide no relief from our personal income tax burdens. If so, public reaction will be justifiably savage.

In an April 7 interview the Prime Minister said the budget would "have a strong surplus, quite deliberately", because "we need it". This would be after further spending on quite a large agenda of welfare reforms.

The latter was not, he said, "a cost-cutting exercise". Indeed, the now completed Expenditure Review Committee process reportedly did not involve any significant attempts to find savings by abolishing or even cutting existing spending programs.

This general impression of a government complacent about its past high-spending, high-taxing record and devoid of any drive, let alone imagination, to reform our personal income tax system, was reinforced by the Treasurer on the ABC's Insider program on April 24. The budget's key theme is "sustainability". Whatever that may mean, it does not seem to include general tax relief.

To see the absolute gall of such an outcome, consider a few figures. The last budget put this year's underlying cash surplus at $2.4billion, and that for 2005-06 at $1.6billion. More recently, the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook incorporated the new policy expenditures resulting both from the Government's pre-election spending spree and from its election campaign spending promises, totalling $1.6billion in 2004-05 and $2.9billion in 2005-06.

Yet the underlying cash surpluses rose sharply, to $6.2billion and $4.5billion respectively. Last month's Access Economics business outlook saw the surplus outcomes for both years "likely to out-perform official forecasts" even further.

Can it really be that, apart from new spending on its welfare reforms, the Government is simply proposing to hang on to these huge surpluses quite deliberately? To lend some verisimilitude to this otherwise indefensible policy, it has devised a so-called future fund, into which it will pay these surpluses (plus most of the proceeds from Telstra and other future asset sales) to fund, over time, the present large public service superannuation accounts deficit.

It has always been hard to take the future-fund notion seriously. When it first surfaced as a broader inter-generational fund, the secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, was openly, and rightly, scathing about it. Now that ministers have decided to erect this nonsense on stilts at the apex of this and future budgets, he has understandably fallen silent.

Our Government should certainly provide annually in its budget for the future pension liabilities it is now accruing. And funding liabilities previously accrued is an appropriate use of asset sale proceeds. But requiring current taxpayers to make good, from their present heavily taxed incomes, the fiscal failings of the past, is as unjust as it is financially unnecessary.

The post-election period has seen a stream of proposals for reforming our personal income tax system. Of course, no reasonable person has expected the Government to do so overnight in next week's budget. What reasonable people have had every right to expect, however, are four things.

First, the Government next week should clearly and unequivocally commit to a significant reform. Second, it should clearly set out that reform's key objectives, including a broad timetable. Third, it should take the first steps towards those objectives, using the huge surpluses now available and in prospect. Fourth, it should stop talking nonsense about hoarding those surpluses for the benefit of some future generation much richer than us.

As to detail, I note two generalisations and three particulars. The first generalisation is that tax reform is best associated with spending restraint. The second is that, so long as we have high marginal personal tax rates, taxpayers will move heaven and earth to (legally) avoid them.

In Kerry Packer's famous words to a parliamentary committee, they will do so because they rightly object to handing over their incomes "to be spent by people like you". The three particulars are, first, the need to align the current 42 and 47 per cent personal tax rates with the 30 per cent company rate (thereby removing the most significant tax avoidance avenue).

Second, to begin gradually removing the $6000 zero-rate threshold, the second-most important tax avoidance area, containing about $70billion of untaxed income and constituting the greatest single obstacle to reform.

Third, to aim ultimately for a single rate tax (thereby automatically removing bracket creep) at not more than 25 per cent, and preferably 20 per cent.

The savagely punitive nature of our present personal income tax arrangements is now painfully evident to everyone enmeshed in them. The Government's apparent disregard of that political reality, if confirmed next Tuesday, will cost it dear.

John Stone, a former Treasury secretary and National Party senator, is conference convener of the Samuel Griffith Society

.

Yet more on the Single Rate Tax (part 1)

I have been collecting articles on Single Rate Tax for some time. This is a good time as any to reprint some.

First from the political left: Here is a report on a proposal from Prime Minister Bob Hawke's economic advisor Ross Garnaut -

Mike Steketee: A way to spark real incentive

April 28, 2005

RATHER than a nip here and a tuck there, Ross Garnaut has an idea for really fixing the tax and welfare systems.

It's a 30per cent flat tax levied from the first dollar of earned income.

It would be offset at lower to middle incomes by a so-called negative income tax in the form of a flat-rate government payment, while at higher incomes an assets test would apply and many of the vast array of tax concessions would be removed. Company tax would remain at 30per cent and capital gains tax would be raised to the same level.

On his basic proposition of a flat-rate tax, Garnaut, professor of economics at the Australian National University and an influential economic adviser to Bob Hawke as prime minister, keeps some interesting company. The recently departed Joh Bjelke-Petersen was an advocate of flat tax. It has become all the rage in eastern Europe, with single-rate income taxes ranging from 12per cent in Georgia and 13per cent in Russia up to 33per cent inLithuania.

So what is Garnaut on about? In short, setting Australia up for another burst of economic growth, integrating and greatly simplifying the tax and social security systems and making the tax system more progressive.

Garnaut was a participant in the last wave of bold economic reform, including the floating of the dollar in 1983, financial deregulation and tariff cuts. He thinks we are overdue for another bout to stave off a future of mediocre economic performance. And part of that is rethinking the tax system.

"My main objective is to get people thinking about first-best solutions, rather than just tinkering at the edges," he says.

"There is recognition that you need to do something pretty radical like this if you are really going to deal with the problem of [work] disincentive, which has become so horrific as the social security system has expanded."

This expansion has occurred as more people on lower incomes qualify for benefits to supplement income from part-time and low-paid work and as family benefits have grown. Taxes combined with the withdrawal of multiple benefits as incomes rise creates the problem of effective marginal rates of tax of 70per cent or more and the resulting disincentive to take up work.

Garnaut points out that the proportion of the population employed was higher in Australia than the US and New Zealand up until the 1980s but now it is lower than both. One reason he identifies is Australia's higher EMTRs.

His reform would lower these rates for most people to 30per cent. Combined with a freeze in minimum wages, which also are higher than in the US and New Zealand, he suggests that this could raise total employment by 5per cent or more over four to five years.

The tax system would become fairer because most of the opportunities high-income earners have to reduce their tax would be removed. There no longer would be an advantage in diverting income into companies or capital gains because they would all be taxed at the same rate.

As you would expect with such a big-bang reform, there are plenty of potential problems and objections. Garnaut is really proposing a move away from means tests and back towards a universal system as a means of increasing incentives. That makes it expensive.

He suggests phasing it in and paying for future stages from future economic growth, including that unleashed by reform. But that involves an act of faith.

Rather than replacing all benefits, the negative income tax could be paid at the same level as unemployment benefits to those in the labour force -- that is, both employed and unemployed.

Those taking jobs would continue to receive the payment and lose only 30per cent of their earned income, as opposed to 70per cent or more now (although during the phase-in period, the flat tax rate would have to be set higher).

Garnaut says the payment could be removed at high incomes -- perhaps $80,000 to $100,000. This would mean that, having first taken away the EMTR problem, it would return, though less severely and higher up the income scale.

To those few higher-income earners paying tax at somewhere close to the top marginal rate of 48.5per cent, a 30per cent tax would be a boon. Garnaut would accept a higher tax rate for high- income earners but says that it would not add much to revenue because it would apply to only a small proportion of taxpayers.

The Government has been mulling for more than six years over the barriers to work created by high EMTRs but made progress in only a few areas. The problem will only get worse on current trends. Forcing more people into work by changing the eligibility requirements for benefits, as it plans to do in the budget, is a limited response.

The undeniable logic of Garnaut's reform has to be balanced against implementing it in practice and the political risks involved in any bold reform, particularly one advocated from Opposition.

But shadow treasurer Wayne Swan is interested in Garnaut's ideas, particularly in the longer term. "We have relied too much on the social security system to redistribute income rather than on our primary redistributive mechanism, the tax system," he said recently.

There also has been "a bit" of interest from the government side, says Garnaut, "although it doesn't mean the Treasurer is about to run with it".

Still, Garnaut has spiced up the debate.

Mike Steketee is The Australian's National affairs editor

More on a single rate tax

I have supported a single rate income tax for years. It would prevent bracket creep and make tax easier to understand especially if you used the opportunity to remove lot of deductions which usually go to top earners anyway.

One of the main objections is it would be regressive. This is nonsense as the tax fee threshold could be used to make it as progressive as you want. Some proposals even have a variable tax free threshold, as income increased the threshold would be reduced until at some level, you would pay tax on all your income.

Others object we could not afford it. Again this is wrong, Treasury seriously examined a single rate tax a few years ago and concluded we certainly could. I have reprinted the article below.

However, before we go any further, can we please not call it a flat tax? Its really misleading people think a flat amount tax is being proposed. Besides, it will get connected with flat Earth, flat chested, flat beer etc. Single Rate Tax sounds a lot better.

Treasurer flirted with flat tax
David Uren, Economics correspondent
October 14, 2005

WHEN Treasurer Peter Costello left Canberra for his Christmas break last year, he had before him modelling for the most radical reform to income tax in 60 years.

The ambitious plan, prepared for the 2005 budget, would have replaced all the existing tax scales with a single flat rate of tax of 30 per cent.

The current tax-free threshold of $6000 would have been abolished and replaced with a rebate to ensure low-income earners were no worse off.

Treasury modelled a number of tax plans, including proposals from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, accounting body CPA Australia and the Government's backbench tax ginger group.

The most detailed work, however, was completed on the proposal for a flat tax. It included an analysis of winners and losers and an outline of legislation, covering other tax rebates and pensions, that would need to be amended.

The plan was clearly affordable without pushing the budget into deficit, with the cost rising from $7.7 billion in 2005-06 to $10.1 billion in 2008-09.

By contrast, the tax plan Mr Costello eventually announced on budget day in May - including a $6-a-week tax cut for low-income earners and the increases in the thresholds for the top two tax rates - was phased in, with the annual cost rising increasing from an initial $3.1 billion to $6.7billion by 2008-09.

Treasury projects that the budget will be in surplus by $8.5 billion in that year, so the pot from which tax cuts could be drawn totalled $15.2 billion.

The proposal was still live after the Christmas break. In January, Treasury considered an option for eliminating workplace deductions for high-income earners. That would reduce the cost by the fourth year to $9.6 billion.

People earning more than $101,280 a year would be denied tax deductions for expenses such as motor vehicles, study and home offices. The plan was tailored so there would be no losers.

The key to this was the rebate for low-income earners that would replace the current tax-free threshold. The idea was that the rebate would be phased in for low-income earners up to incomes of $21,600, where it would be worth $3828 a year.

People on incomes up to $63,000 would get the full rebate, which would be gradually phased out for people earning between $63,000 and $101,280.

The proposal would have made people earning between $63,000 and $80,000 better off by 2c in the dollar.

The gain would then be 7c in the dollar up to $101,280 and 17c in the dollar for incomes higher than that.

Only those privy to the Treasurer's thinking know why the plan was dropped, but it may have been because of an analysis Treasury prepared on who would be the winners. Although nobody would be worse off as a result of the changes, only 20 per cent of taxpayers would be better off. The gains were biggest for high-income earners.

Howard's tax cuts

Howard and Costello today announced 34 billion dollars worth of tax cuts if the get re-elected. Sounds good but its over 5 years, so how much of that is simply returning funds gained through bracket creep? As the Liberty & Democracy Party video below shows the coalition has hardly been a low tax government.

Sadly the Labor Party are not likely to do any better and a minor party like the LDP has bugger all chance of even getting elected let alone having any real influence. However I do like their 30/30 flat tax proposal. If you really want to simplify the tax system then a single rate tax makes a lot of sense. John Humphreys wrote a paper on the proposal some time ago.

Privatize Centrelink

The great frontier for privatization is government administration. If governments want to provide better services for customers and receive value for money then the administration of government programs need to be in a competitive market.

The public generally forgets that state agencies such as Centrelink and Medicare are monopolies, they are state owned enterprises who basically administer databases. Theres absolutely no reason why their activities couldn't be done by the private sector. Companies often outsource activities such as superannuation and share registry administration, customer service call centres etc. The private sector already has the basic organizations in place, they could quickly organize to take over the work.

Governments would farm out their programs by competitive tender for say, three years. Targets would be set and the results monitored. Fees tied to performance.

Critics will say that unlike Centrelink private companies would be driven by profit. While Centrelink may not technically make a profit, in 2005/2006 it had a “operating result” of $11.2 million. As well there was return to government of $45.6 million and it was $217.5 million cash flow positive too. The private sector could certainly operate programs efficiently and still make a profit. probably at reduced cost to the government. The no profit argument is no different then what was said before the privatization of Telstra or Commonwealth Bank. Those evil profits allow companies to grow and invest providing revenues to governments through economic growth.

Panic in Iran?

The article below is follow up to a previous post. If the Israelis and/or the Americans do attack Iran will the Iranians also stay quiet? Its well worth reading the full article.

Silence in Syria, panic in Iran

Dr. Jack Wheeler

One of India’s top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran — in a state of complete amazement.

“Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing,” he reports. “No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, ‘Do you think the Americans will attack us?’ ‘When will the Americans attack us?’ ‘Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?’ How massive will the attack be?’ on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic”.

And that was before September 6. Since then, it’s panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria. On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel’s military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens’ Osirak II? on September 18 in The Wall Street Journal

Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel’s silence that “speaks volumes” as he claims, but Syria’s. Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil? The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the Israeli media last on August 13: Syria’s Antiaircraft System Most Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending vast sums on Russian systems, “considered the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.”

Syria now “possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world,” with “more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types,” some of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria “before being introduced into Russian operation service.” While you’re digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria: Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th.

Nothing.

El blanko. Silence. The systems didn’t even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded. Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected — at enormous expense — only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked..............

International Environmentally Friendly Day

Below is my solution to the problem of global warming. I think we should have an International Environmentally Friendly Day. If it catches on I might even win a Noble Prize.

Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Yep, those sages on the Nobel Committee have given the Peace Prize to former Vice President Al Gore.

FORMER US vice-president Al Gore and the UN climate panel will share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness of the threat of global warming.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Mr Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to share the prize from a field of 181 candidates.

"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the committee said in its award citation......

Since leaving office in 2001 Mr Gore has lectured extensively on the threat of global warming and last year starred in his own Oscar-winning documentary film An Inconvenient Truth to warn of the dangers of climate change and urge action against it.

The Nobel prize is worth 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.7 million) and will be handed out in Oslo on December 10.

Perhaps he can use to prize money to help pay his energy bills.

Gore's truths

Al Gore been jetting down here every year or so to promote one or another of his ventures. Not only is he a former Vice President, author, film maker and global warming expert but apparently he now is an investment fund manager. You and I can invest in a fund thats been “approved by Al Gore” as the TV ad says. Also he the odds on candidate for this years Noble Peace Prize.

Well, the Noble Prize Committee can make their own decisions and I'll do proper due diligence before investing money in any fund , but there been a interesting report regarding his film Inconvenient Truth. Andrew Bolt reports on a British court case:

So, when Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver and school governor from Kent, heard that Britain’s Labour Government was sending copies of Gore’s film to more than 3800 schools he sued. “I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore’s film falls far short of the standard required,” said the father of two.

What followed was three days of argument in the English High Court on just how truthful Gore’s Academy Award-winning film really was.

Justice Michael Burton is yet to give his final ruling, but has already said the film promotes “partisan political views” and schools must warn students of that.

Worse for Gore’s reputation, Burton also said the Government had to rewrite the guidance notes for teachers that accompany the film to point out that An Inconvenient Truth contained 11 serious untruths or unsubstantiated claims. Only then could it be shown in class.

Here are those 11 corrections to Gore’s film - and many will be familiar to readers of this column:

Gore presents Mt Kilimanjaro’s melting snows as proof of global warming. In fact, the snows are vanishing thanks to local factors, including deforestation.

Gore suggests Antarctica’s ice cover is melting. Most studies says it is increasing or stable.

Gore shows scary graphics of cities drowning in seas that rise 7m, causing millions of refugees. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the seas will rise at worst by 59cm this century.

Gore uses images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests it was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert in this case admitted such one-off events can’t be blamed on warming.

Gore suggests ice-core evidence shows rising CO2 caused temperature rises, which ended the past seven ice ages. In fact, the CO2 rises followed temperature rises by 800 to 2000 years.

Gore claims global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, causing an ice age in Europe. Recent studies deny it.

Gore blames global warming for species losses and coral reef bleaching. The Government couldn’t show evidence to back this claim.

Gore claims a study showed polar bears had drowned because of vanishing ice. The study actually said just four polar bears drowned, and only because of a bad storm.

Gore suggests Greenland’s ice could melt, causing a dangerous rise in sea levels. In fact, Greenland’s ice won’t melt for thousands of years.

Gore shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert agreed this was not the case.

Gore claims rising seas have forced people to flee Pacific islands to New Zealand. There is no record of any such warming-caused evacuation.

I don’t know why the court stopped at just 11. Hyperbole overload? But this must be enough to make rational viewers sceptical of all Gore’s case.

The British Government has now rewritten its guidance to teachers to take in those 11 objections, while trying very hard not to make Gore’s film seem fraudulent.

Update the court has delivered its decision:

High Court Judge, Mr Justice Burton, stated that "there would have been a breach of sections 406 and 407 of the [Education] Act [1996] but for the bringing of these proceedings..." He awarded two-thirds costs against the Government and required it to make an interim payment of £60,000.