Comments (2)

By Les Scammell, February 7, 2011 11:05 am

Tony Abbott, Australia’s wanna be prime minister. I am sure there is more whine coming out of him than there is coming out of the Barossa Valley. Not to worry, it seems the knives are out and the vultures in the wings are just waiting for their moment to pounce. We have already seen Joe Hockey come out and flatly accepts that Tony Abbott’s email to liberal supporters was wrong.

Tony Abbott

While I am accusing Tony Abbott of whining non-stop and being totally negative, it seems to be trending through the whole coalition. Everytime they open their mouths it is to utter negative opinions on everything the government does. The problem is, occasionally they are right, but with so much negativity coming out of the coalition, we are becoming deaf to it all.

Let’s look back – the insulation scheme did have problems – but the majority of people who had their homes insulated, did so with few if any problems. The school projects – 95% of those were completed without any problems at all. The 5% that Abbott concentrates on were not really government issues as such. The focus should have been on businesses that saw both of these programs as an open invitation to rip off taxpayers – it was these business owners who should be the target of Abbott’s anger – but then, they are coalition supporters.

Tony – we don’t want to listen to your whining all day about what the government is doing wrong. There are some things the government is doing right, and it’s time you admitted it. When the government is in the wrong, then we’ll listen to you. As it stands now, the general consensus is that you go back to pre-school and learn to stop whining.

Comments Off

By Les Scammell, January 31, 2011 11:29 pm

I am going to declare my hand before proceeding – I am a labor supporter, always have been. When it comes to Julia Gillard, I am sitting on the fence at present. She has some very good attributes, but one very bad attribute – but then, she is a politician first. The one thing she wont do is listen to what others have to say, then make changes if their thoughts are logical.

The flood levy is one very good example. The levy in principle is, in my opinion, a good idea. The implementation is not what we need however. Why I disagree with Tony Abbott and co is very simple – he want to cut extra from the budget rather than implement a levy. I don’t know if he is really being sincere in this respect – Howard introduced a levy of 0.2% to help pay for the gun buy back scheme – I think this flood levy is on a par with that.

Back to my original point about cutting into the budget further, the problem I have with this is that, being Australia, final costs are always a lot more than originally estimated. What is now $5.6 billion in costs will most likely be $8 billion or more come the final reckoning. If those figures do blow out, that is when we will need to trim more from the budget. Trim it all now, and there is no room to move when we need to.

I said the flood levy was a good idea, and in principle it is. However, It is probably a little too much, but more importantly, being done for the wrong reason. Australia is a land of drama – we have floods, tropical cyclones, wild bushfires and even the odd earthquake. We need a permanent national disaster fund and this should be funded across a number of levels. First, a permanent levy at around 0.2% or even 0.25%. I agree with the targeting of higher paying incomes although $50k seems a little low. I would suggest starting at around $75k-$80k with the second tier cutting in at $150k with that levy at 0.5%. businesses should not be exempt, however I think this is where highly profitable companies can afford to pay – perhaps a 2.5% levy on all businesses that record $100 million plus per year profits.

Funds in this national disaster fund would accumulate until needed and would only be used to pay for infrastructure rebuilding and repair. It could be managed by an independent board, funding infrastructure on 1:1:1 basis – $1 for every $1 spent by both the Federal Government and the State Governments.

This levy is, as I suggested, a good idea. However, it is flawed in its rationale and in its life span. Of course, I am not an economist or politician so I just think logically.

Comments (2)

By Les Scammell, January 27, 2011 10:43 am

That Used To Be A Road

With much of the east coast of Australia now heavily involved in the clean up following recent flooding, the question is now turning to who will foot the bill. It’s a thorny question that is bringing the best and worst out of many people. Insurance companies are ducking for cover and trying every strategy possible to avoid payouts, governments are crying poor, and the Australian population together with many from around the world have already dug deep to the tune of around $80 million. However, with a flood bill estimated to be close to $6 billion, the money has to come from somewhere.

The $80 million that has been raised should and will go to the victims of these floods. The $5-$6 billion that is being touted refers to the cost of rebuilding infrastructure – roads, bridges and rail rebuilding will chew up a lot of those funds. Australia as a nation relies on this infrastructure. In central Queensland, coal exports have been brought a virtual standstill with millions of dollars being lost everyday. Around the country, roads, bridges and rail are essential for transporting the fruit, vegetables, grains and meats from rural areas to centralized markets.

Should we buy sea planes

Because we rely on this infrastructure for our food, we as a nation have to be responsible for the costs of restoring it. If that means a small increase in the Medicare levy – so be it. However, I would much prefer to see a small permanent levy introduced for disaster relief – if you like, a national disaster relief fund. This should be funded by residents, businesses, insurance companies and governments at all levels.

There is a lot of anger being expressed around the community because of the mis-information that is being spread in some sectors. There are many that believe that a Medicare levy would be used to help those who didn’t have insurance for example. This is not, or at least should not be the case. Any levy imposed must be restricted to infrastructure spending alone as would any funds accumulated in a national disaster relief fund.

Australia is a great country. We do however experience the best and worst of what mother nature has to offer. When droughts, floods and cyclones hit, they do it big time. We are lucky that earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are not a part of that list. Add to this the disasters we create with bush fires, occasional road and rail incidents, and you will find that we have a disaster of some description on a regular basis. We are I guess fortunate that we have never had a major air disaster let alone an air disaster over a heavily populated area. We are also fortunate that terrorism has not found its way onto our shores in the way it has in many other countries.

A .25% or .5% levy, while perhaps costing us $5 a week extra in taxes, is nothing compared to the increased costs in food if this infrastructure is never repaired. Better yet – I wonder if Gillard and Co are prepare to think long term and introduce a national disaster fund. It was one major recommendation that came out of the 1974 funds – but no one had the political vision to run with it. I wouldn’t hold my breath this time either.

What do you think? Would you support a national disaster relief fund? How much are you willing to pay – o.2% 0.15% 0.25%? After all, it is our country and it is our food supplies at risk!

Road and Rail underwater

Comments (2)

By Les Scammell, December 18, 2009 10:24 am

Australians have proven over the years that we are quite inventive. We are world leaders in some technologies and often take a leadership role in political matters, particularly those in our neighbourhood. When it comes to the world climate talks in Copenhagen, we could have arrived being world leaders in taking action – instead, we are no different to most other nations, we are looking for someone else to take the lead so we can follow.

I don’t know if the Rudd Governments plans are right or wrong. What I do know is that some form of action was being planned. Going to Copenhagen and waiting to see what everyone else does as the Abbott wants, really makes us look quite weak. What is worse, every other nation is doing just that – waiting to see what everyone else does. Going in with legislation in place could have been a starting point for more action – instead – we, and our children, are left with nothing.