This article looks at the ten biggest economic reforms that have helped Australia achieve prosperity. I can't get the full article online. Sorry to all the knee-jerk reactionists, but handouts for farmers and carmakers are probably not among them.

Only one - the GST - is credited to the Liberals alone. Three are credited to both parties. All the remainder are credited to the Labor Party.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/success-began-with-floating-the-dollar/story-e6frgd0x-1226780122351#

AUSTRALIA'S unprecedented and unparalleled 22 years of economic growth has many causes. It is a success story with many fathers and mothers. A combination of a series of government decisions and a fortuitous symmetry between the structure of our economy and the needs of our fast-growing Asian neighbours has seen our economy grow continuously for longer than at any time in our history and longer than any comparable modern country. The Grattan Institute has identified the 10 big government reforms which have contributed to this growth. They range from the floating of the dollar, through tariff reductions, to the reform of higher education funding. Of the 10 big reforms, nine were introduced by federal Labor governments. Three of these can be traced to a joint bipartisan ownership between the Labor and Liberal parties. Only one (the GST) can be claimed as the sole child of the conservatives.

Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny.
;D

Yes, FD, but Mr Abbott will not be reforming anything, we all know that. Stable, reliable, predictable government, steady as she goes, the grown-ups back in charge. Say what you’ll do and do what you say, that’s Mr Abbott’s motto, Muslim terrorists and paedophile priests back on the front pages again.

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party.

You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website.

This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast.

The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines?

Grown-ups, you mean.

Everyone else can suck Mr Abbott’s slug.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines?

Or comprehend what they DO read....

Kat wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines? Or comprehend what they DO read....

Mr Abbott’s a dish. He’s a tall glass of water.

Trainee priest, monarchist, firefighter and triathlete.

Yes, leftards, Australia is open for business again.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast.

And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day?

What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold?

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold?

The toilet seat?

Oh, hang on... That's Alan's job.  :P

Reported. You are obviously here to troll  :-*

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold?

What seat does the Grattan Institute hold?

History backs Keating's claim on economy

The Australian
June 29, 2007



PAUL Keating is 100 per cent right when he says that when you change the government, you change the nation. He might have added that when the government changes, the nation's storyline also changes as the incoming party emphasises, and sometimes rewrites, strands of our historical narrative to suit itself. 
 
The narrative matters. Along with taking care of the voter's hip pocket, it's a fundamental weapon in asserting and maintaining dominance over your political opponent. They, along with the qualities of the contending leaders, are what determines election outcomes.

That's why there has been a mighty mud wrestle this week between current and former prime ministers, treasurers and Treasury secretaries over who did what, when and why on economic policy in Australia during the past three decades.

And that's why this isn't an academic spat about the past between former treasurers Howard and Keating, but rather is a key political conflict between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd. At stake is Labor's reputation as an economic manager and, by implication, its fitness for government.

And it's not just a former Labor prime minister pointing out Howard's porkies on this score but a former Liberal prime minister, too - Howard's old boss, Malcolm Fraser.

Howard would have us believe that as the Fraser government's treasurer from 1977 to 1983 he was frustrated in his desire to open up the then uncompetitive, inward-looking Australian economy, by a fuddy-duddy boss.

Howard positions himself as the person really behind the subsequent floating of the Australian dollar, the dismantling of industry protection and the introduction of enterprise bargaining into the workplace that resulted in big increases in labour productivity in the 1980s and early '90s.

The massive boom Australia is enjoying now is therefore down to him, goes Howard's argument.

Does this stand up to scrutiny?

Over the years Fraser has had a simple, consistent and powerful response to Howard's whine about being an economic reform warrior cruelly stymied by an old-money, Western Districts prime minister: show me the cabinet submissions.

Fraser points out that Howard cannot produce a single cabinet submission in which Howard proposed any measure to open up and modernise the Australian economy that was knocked back. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Fraser's word has to be accepted.

The 30-year-rule protecting cabinet papers from Howard's period as treasurer is unlikely to save Howard on this point as it progressively expires from the end of this year. As prime minister he can access any cabinet paper he wants. If there were cabinet submissions countering Fraser's taunt, you can bet Howard would have dug them out and leaked them by now.

Further, Howard was widely known at the time to have dragged his feet establishing the Campbell committee, whose report on the financial system set the tone for aspects of Labor's reforms in the '80s and early '90s. The impetus came from Fraser's office, which had to prod a reluctant Howard into bringing a cabinet submission forward to get the Campbell committee going.

Howard trying to steal credit for the Hawke and Keating governments' massive and massively successful modernisation of the Australian economy (in partnership with an informed and intelligent trade union movement) is desperate stuff.

As he casts his mind back to that period he may want to pause and consider this point: he was in Opposition the whole time. The argument that Howard made the public case for such reform during the Labor years is sterile to say the least. Being able to talk about sex doesn't make the bride pregnant. It takes something more.

In the case of economic reform in the '80s and early '90s it took actually being in office. Not only was Howard in Opposition at the time, he and his ideas were so ill-supported on his own side of politics that he was Liberal leader for just three years and nine months of Labor's 13 years in office.

Howard couldn't sell an ice cream in hell for most of his time in Opposition, let alone a challenging economic reform agenda. Following on from Bill Hayden's herculean efforts in Opposition to school Labor in modern economic fundamentals, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, in contrast, could and did.

Howard's economic legacy is this: a massive increase in the complexity of the tax system, an explosion in business regulation, inculcation of a public debt aversion that has choked off development of the infrastructure needed to optimise growth, and labour laws thicker than the Sydney Yellow Pages.

That's progress Howard-style.

You can take the word of Keating and Fraser as gospel on Howard's worth as an economic reformer. Lucky for Howard he's got a once-every-50-years sized terms of trade boost and booming world economy to provide a figleaf for his embarrassment.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/michael-costello-history-backs-keatings-claim-on-economy/story-e6frg6zo-1111113846673



... you wouldn't get to read THIS opinion - in TODAY'S "The Australian"

Karnal wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:33pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines? Or comprehend what they DO read.... Mr Abbott’s a dish. He’s a tall glass of water. Trainee priest, monarchist, firefighter and triathlete. Yes, leftards, Australia is open for business again.

A Petri dish?

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D

Well if it's party propaganda it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute the article with links to the real truth.

Not even the whole thing, leave the GST and the 3 credited to both, so that leaves 6.

Too Easy.

Do worry about not enough posts to hyperlink, put a space betwwen the dot we can the copy paste and remove space to your references

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold? What seat does the Grattan Institute hold?

The same seat that Getup! holds for the Left. It's an ALP aligned think tank.

Karnal wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Mr Abbott’s a dish.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QdRihMbKJLA/UahOpYtFxrI/AAAAAAAAFvk/PyLnteuaq9Q/s1600/Petri+Dish.jpg

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D Well if it's party propaganda it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute the article with links to the real truth. Not even the whole thing, leave the GST and the 3 credited to both, so that leaves 6. Too Easy. Do worry about not enough posts to hyperlink, put a space betwwen the dot we can the copy paste and remove space to your references

If you don't already realise that policies are bastardised across all party lines from many years, committees, think tanks etc then you have a lot to learn.

Even in the first paragraph where the author tries to disown the GST that all parties loved but hated to sell tells the story of the dishonesty of the author.

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:14pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D Well if it's party propaganda it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute the article with links to the real truth. Not even the whole thing, leave the GST and the 3 credited to both, so that leaves 6. Too Easy. Do worry about not enough posts to hyperlink, put a space betwwen the dot we can the copy paste and remove space to your references If you don't already realise that policies are bastardised across all party lines from many years, committees, think tanks etc then you have a lot to learn. Even in the first paragraph where the author tries to disown the GST that all parties loved but hated to sell tells the story of the dishonesty of the author.

Its an OPINION piece of course there will be embelishment.
But cold hard facts always take care of those lines.
So leave those out and concentrate on the facts.

Just the 6 you disagree with, or if your not 1 eyed and its the WHOLE system your arguing against, not just a party, then we'll probably find some agreement.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

The grattan institute is Chris Bowen?  What is it with conservatives not being able to read a few lines?

Andrei is a Boer. He only understands Afrikaans.

The left has always been the movement of reform, the right that of the status quo.

Tis always so, and always will remain.

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:03pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold? What seat does the Grattan Institute hold? The same seat that Getup! holds for the Left. It's an ALP aligned think tank.

A think tank that nonetheless produces reports and recommendations based on research.  So, rather than refute on the principle of "Chris Bowen is speaking about it, it can't be true" perhaps you'd like to also embark on some research and refute using that?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:32pm:

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:03pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold? What seat does the Grattan Institute hold? The same seat that Getup! holds for the Left. It's an ALP aligned think tank. A think tank that nonetheless produces reports and recommendations based on research.  So, rather than refute on the principle of "Chris Bowen is speaking about it, it can't be true" perhaps you'd like to also embark on some research and refute using that?

Its a Left wing orientated think tank being parroted here by the former leader of the Labor Party.

Seriously, I am stunned its showing the Coalition in a bad light. Who'd have thunk eh?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:32pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:03pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold? What seat does the Grattan Institute hold? The same seat that Getup! holds for the Left. It's an ALP aligned think tank. A think tank that nonetheless produces reports and recommendations based on research.  So, rather than refute on the principle of "Chris Bowen is speaking about it, it can't be true" perhaps you'd like to also embark on some research and refute using that? Its a Left wing orientated think tank being parroted here by the former leader of the Labor Party. Seriously, I am stunned its showing the Coalition in a bad light. Who'd have thunk eh?

See, the word "research" just doesn't seem to register with our fellow conservatives.

Yet it disowns the GST that Keating loved and Hawkie killed as teh "Libs very own"  ::)

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:03pm: Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast. And yet it is valid for your mates to re post the Bolt / Ackerman article each day? What seat in parliament do Bolt and Ackerman hold? What seat does the Grattan Institute hold? The same seat that Getup! holds for the Left. It's an ALP aligned think tank ...

... with Peter Costello and corporate Australia as a 'godparents'



Grattan Institute began with pressure from senior figures in the Victorian Public Service, academic institutions, and broader business and non-government leaders, who believed that Australian political life lacked a heavyweight independent think tank.

Through the course of 2005 this idea was fleshed out by several people in the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, including discussions with a number of Australia’s corporate leaders.

At the end of 2005 the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, met with the Federal Treasurer Peter Costello to define the theme for the think tank: Australia as a liberal democracy in a globalised economy, a phrase now enshrined in the Constitution of Grattan Institute.

Links between Melbourne University, Victorian Government, and corporate Australia, along with a supportive report from McKinsey and Company, were the basis for then Victorian Premier Bracks and Treasurer Brumby in early 2007 promising significant Victorian Government funding for the idea, and asking Melbourne University to assist. In April 2008, Commonwealth and Victorian Governments announced matching funding, along with support in kind from the University of Melbourne. Commitments followed soon after from BHP and National Australia Bank. Grattan receives money from its Affiliates, which include GE Australia, Google, Stockland, Wesfarmers, Ernst & Young, Lend Lease, the Origin Foundation, Sinclair Knight Merz, the Scanlon Foundation and Urbis. The Higher Education Program is funded by the Myer Foundation.

this is like Swanie claiming credit for the greatest Treasurer title

Quote:

AUSTRALIA'S unprecedented and unparalleled 22 years of economic growth has many causes. It is a success story with many fathers and mothers. A combination of a series of government decisions and a fortuitous symmetry between the structure of our economy and the needs of our fast-growing Asian neighbours has seen our economy grow continuously for longer than at any time in our history and longer than any comparable modern country. The Grattan Institute has identified the 10 big government reforms which have contributed to this growth. They range from the floating of the dollar, through tariff reductions, to the reform of higher education funding.

I love the way Bowen tries to link 22 years of economic growth with the floating of the Australian dollar

When did Keating float the dollar?

12 December 1983

Given Hawke won in March 1983 - and the process and logistics of floating the currency would have taken years in planning you'd think Keating did a Swannie claiming credit

If the coloured crayon calligrapher smears his support for Grattan then you can be sure its a left wing front. Just like Getup! is a a non-affiliated activist NGO and The Wilderness Society is a non-Greens affiliated NGO  ::)

Maqqa wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

Quote: AUSTRALIA'S unprecedented and unparalleled 22 years of economic growth has many causes. It is a success story with many fathers and mothers. A combination of a series of government decisions and a fortuitous symmetry between the structure of our economy and the needs of our fast-growing Asian neighbours has seen our economy grow continuously for longer than at any time in our history and longer than any comparable modern country. The Grattan Institute has identified the 10 big government reforms which have contributed to this growth. They range from the floating of the dollar, through tariff reductions, to the reform of higher education funding. I love the way Bowen tries to link 22 years of economic growth with the floating of the Australian dollar When did Keating float the dollar? 12 December 1983 Given Hawke won in March 1983 - and the process and logistics of floating the currency would have taken years in planning you'd think Keating did a Swannie claiming credit

Please refrain from commenting on anything economics related.  You seem to constantly get things very, very, very wrong.

Peter Freedman wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:31pm:

The left has always been the movement of reform, the right that of the status quo. Tis always so, and always will remain.

And reforms in the area of aboriginal self autonomy have resulted in such prosperity for indigenous Australians.
Reforms of the family court have just been marvellous for marital stability and family life.
Reforms like the single mothers pension have done wonders to reduce welfare dependency and learned helplessness.

Labors reforms have been disastrous in so many areas

Buzz, just how would leaking those cabinet documents help Howard? He's got no need to do it - he isn't in politics anymore. Why would he go to the trouble and effort when his incredible legacy can speak for itself? He has far too much class to do that.

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D

Bowen was our most incompetent Immigration Minister and did little to change perceptions in his brief stint as Treasurer following Rudd's resurgence. At least when you read a piece by Costello, he gives it to both sides of the political divide and tells it how it is. Bowen would have you believe Labor are economic geniuses! I think the last six years are evidence enough to disprove that! ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 1:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 12th, 2013 at 12:41am: Quote: AUSTRALIA'S unprecedented and unparalleled 22 years of economic growth has many causes. It is a success story with many fathers and mothers. A combination of a series of government decisions and a fortuitous symmetry between the structure of our economy and the needs of our fast-growing Asian neighbours has seen our economy grow continuously for longer than at any time in our history and longer than any comparable modern country. The Grattan Institute has identified the 10 big government reforms which have contributed to this growth. They range from the floating of the dollar, through tariff reductions, to the reform of higher education funding. I love the way Bowen tries to link 22 years of economic growth with the floating of the Australian dollar When did Keating float the dollar? 12 December 1983 Given Hawke won in March 1983 - and the process and logistics of floating the currency would have taken years in planning you'd think Keating did a Swannie claiming credit Please refrain from commenting on anything economics related.  You seem to constantly get things very, very, very wrong.

It's genetic with Maqqa and a handful of other neo-cons here.

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

Its a Left wing orientated think tank being parroted here by the former leader of the Labor Party. Seriously, I am stunned its showing the Coalition in a bad light. Who'd have thunk eh?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 12:32am:

this is like Swanie claiming credit for the greatest Treasurer title

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 12:48am:

If the coloured crayon calligrapher smears his support for Grattan then you can be sure its a left wing front. Just like Getup! is a a non-affiliated activist NGO and The Wilderness Society is a non-Greens affiliated NGO  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 5:10am:

Proud Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Opinion written by Chris Bowen. That's funny. ;D Bowen was our most incompetent Immigration Minister and did little to change perceptions in his brief stint as Treasurer following Rudd's resurgence. At least when you read a piece by Costello, he gives it to both sides of the political divide and tells it how it is. Bowen would have you believe Labor are economic geniuses! I think the last six years are evidence enough to disprove that! ;D ;D ;D

All of the above is fallacious ad hominem rubbish. You're all just shooting the messenger and that is not a refutation.

Maybe if all of you took the time to construct and post real arguments others would take you seriously.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 5:08am:

Buzz, just how would leaking those cabinet documents help Howard? He's got no need to do it - he isn't in politics anymore.

Actually, he's got no need to do it because cabinet documents from before 1983 are now publicly available.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

This has been written by Chris Bowen, the former Interim Leader of the Labor Party. You may as well just put up a story from the ALP website. This is hardly political analysis - its a party broadcast.

Yes dear, feel free to refute it, any of it, bet you can't.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

Quote: AUSTRALIA'S unprecedented and unparalleled 22 years of economic growth has many causes. It is a success story with many fathers and mothers. A combination of a series of government decisions and a fortuitous symmetry between the structure of our economy and the needs of our fast-growing Asian neighbours has seen our economy grow continuously for longer than at any time in our history and longer than any comparable modern country. The Grattan Institute has identified the 10 big government reforms which have contributed to this growth. They range from the floating of the dollar, through tariff reductions, to the reform of higher education funding. I love the way Bowen tries to link 22 years of economic growth with the floating of the Australian dollar When did Keating float the dollar? 12 December 1983 Given Hawke won in March 1983 - and the process and logistics of floating the currency would have taken years in planning you'd think Keating did a Swannie claiming credit

He's not claiming it to be the whole cause.

Yes, it was floated in 1983. So what? Are you suggesting that floating the dollar did not make a contribution? If so, you need to show this rather than just mumbling vaguely about its happening in 1983.

Peter Freedman wrote on Dec 11^th, 2013 at 11:31pm:

The left has always been the movement of reform, the right that of the status quo. Tis always so, and always will remain.

Indeed.

Progressives and conservatives.

It doesn't mean that conservatives never do anything worthwhile. It just means that by nature progressive governments have always implemented more reforms than conservative ones.

Consider the amount of laws passed.

Labor governments tend to pass more legislation than conservative governments. It is a tendency that is evident at Federal level going all the way back to federation. The record for most laws passed is usually set during the term of a Labor government.

Has anyone got a list of the ten reforms?

2013 - 22 = 1991

This article goes over a lot of the same territory, but also gives some insight into the positions of internal factions within the parties, and the strategies of the big players over the last 20 years, like Howard.

I love the use of the term "facilitating rhetoric" - a reference to the the coalition's "stance" prior to the election that it would offer assistance to big companies facing trouble (I fully support their decision not to).

Reforms to test alliances

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/reforms-to-test-alliances/story-e6frg6z6-1226821958211#

THE battlelines have been drawn: Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party in the blue corner, Bill Shorten and the Labor opposition in the red corner. But skirmishing behind the scenes within both camps continues unabated, and disagreements are no mere spectacle. It is a fascinating setting ahead of this week’s return of parliament.

With the Prime Minister echoing Joe Hockey’s claim that Australia must put an end to “the age of unsustainable entitlement”, the upper echelons of the government appear to be firming in their philosophical approach to some of the fiscal challenges facing the nation.

A refusal to assist Holden, followed by a refusal to throw money at SPC Ardmona, may have forced the government to redefine some of its more facilitating rhetoric ahead of the election when it comes to lending business a hand. And it does give the appearance of inconsistency given the $16 million assistance package pledged to Cadbury.

But as Abbott noted in his post-cabinet meeting announcement regarding SPC two weeks ago, the time has come - in the government’s view - when a line has to be drawn on industry assistance, making the times we are witnessing a potentially defining period for the country.

But not everyone agrees. “Screwing suppliers, farmers, manufacturing and workplace communities that make up the bulk of Australia is hidden (in) political-speak as market efficiency while in reality it is simply greed,” argues union leader and Labor Party senior vice-president Tony Sheldon.

“We should strive to bring a fair and efficient market economy, not a market society which fails to value its whole community.”

The battle within the Coalition when it comes to taxpayer assistance for distressed businesses will also continue. The Australian revealed last Monday that Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce wants to set up a rural bank to assist farmers suffering from drought as well as broader difficult economic times.

It was also revealed last week that Immigration Minister Scott Morrison argued in cabinet for assistance for SPC. This is a significant development regarding the internal discussions within the Coalition.

Joyce and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane have long been known to favour government intervention for certain industries that are under duress. But Morrison entering the fray on their side of the argument suggests that ideological divisions within cabinet may run deeper than previously thought, raising the question of whether the Abbott government will have the courage to continue to hold the line on industry assistance if political circumstances become more fraught.

Saturday’s by-election for Kevin Rudd’s old seat of Griffith saw both major parties spinning the result in their favour. Labor argued that winning the seat was always going to be difficult, following the retirement of a prime minister so soon after the federal election. The Liberal National Party claims that a swing against the Opposition makes the point that Labor’s attempted scare campaign against reforming governance is falling flat.

There is a long way to go before we will know what the mood of the public is by way of serious government belt-tightening, followed by reform. Or whether the new government sticks to that mantra.

“Tony has to have enough improved economic performance so that the public will continue supporting him,” former Howard government minister Peter Reith says. “Not so much at the next election, but the one after that. The public are looking for competent economic management. Tony needs to get runs on the board for that.”

Internal disagreements within the Liberal Party will make it easier for the likes of Joyce to build support for exceptionalism in cabinet decision-making. That would undermine the economic purity for which the Treasurer and others have started to argue. Abbott, now firmly on side with Hockey, risks becoming spooked if divisions run too deep at a future time when political pressure mounts.

Pressure in the here and now is being applied by the Opposition Leader. His entry into the SPC debate - joining in with the opposition in Victoria to pledge $30m of assistance if Labor wins the state election slated for November - is a hint that federal Labor is showing no signs of stepping away from its philosophical approach to assistance from when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd occupied the prime ministership.

For anyone who thought federal Labor, consigned to the wrong side of the Treasury benches, would take stock of how the party needed to adjust its positioning, given the message voters sent it in September, some repositioning might be in order.

The same thing can be said of reforming the union movement, or partaking in a serious investigation into union corruption. The government plans to announce a royal commission into trade union activities, and Shorten is scrambling to provide an alternative framework for an investigation: a police taskforce, which he announced over the weekend.

But the risk for the Opposition Leader is that he looks captured by a union movement that largely supported his tilt for the leadership. And, as a former union official himself, Shorten may be compromised in his opposition.

Throw in Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes’s intervention, calling at the National Press Club on Wednesday for a new Accord, and it’s clear Shorten is being pressed from all sides. Sheldon isn’t convinced by the concept of a new Accord. “A grand compact for society which includes a root and branch culture change by those powerful businesses and politicians who profit from the class war means that any such compact is doomed.”

What we don’t yet know is the extent to which Abbott will use the current industrial relations debate to expand on his relatively timid workplace reforms taken to the election last year.

It is worthwhile reflecting on these political circumstances in the context of what played out in the 1980s. Then, as now, Australia reached a turning point when the government needed to embrace unpopular decision-making in the longer-term interests of prosperity and global competitiveness.

Bob Hawke and Paul Keating - despite Labor having shown few signs in opposition of moving in this direction - quickly embarked on macro- and, in time, micro-economic reforms after winning the 1983 election.

Hawke, unlike Shorten now, didn’t have to manage a difficult period in opposition first, instead swooping on Bill Hayden’s leadership on the eve of the 1983 election.

The floating of the dollar, the accord with the union movement, tariff reductions and newfound rhetoric from Labor in support of “growing the pie” in the 80s all added up to a dilemma for the then Coalition once in opposition.

The National Party was uncomfortable with much of Labor’s liberalising agenda and so were large swaths of the Liberal Party, including first-term opposition leader Andrew Peacock.

John Howard - then shadow Treasurer and Peacock’s chief rival for the leadership - and the economic dries who had continuously (unsuccessfully) urged Malcolm Fraser to embrace reforms such as Hawke and Keating did, managed to drag the Liberal opposition to a position of supporting much of what Labor embarked on once in government.

Howard had commissioned the Cambell inquiry into the nation’s financial system as Treasurer under Fraser, but was unable to convince cabinet to embark on the inquiry’s recommendations. Keating quickly picked up on the ideas, leaving Howard to watch the fruits of his discovery unfold on Labor’s watch. Howard therefore ensured the Liberals in opposition lent their support.

In doing so, they gave the new government the political cover it needed to enact the changes, which set up decades of prosperity. When internal Labor divisions threatened to boil over, there was nowhere for opponents of the Hawke cabinet’s decision-making to turn. However, support by the Coalition cost the conservatives politically, including for a time a formal severing of the Coalition arrangement.

Internal divisions in the Liberal Party, with the National Party and some economic dries wanting to go even further than Hawke and Keating on the reformist front, left the Opposition in the political wilderness for a greater period than may otherwise have been the case.

Fast-forward to today and we see the early beginnings of a Coalition government seeking to do more than it pledged it would do from opposition. This has already seen claims of broken election commitments, including its demands of greater efficiency from the ABC, where the Coalition is waging a clumsy cultural war.

This follows on the back of backflips in policy areas such as education funding and the functioning of Medicare.

Shorten is firm in his desire to make life difficult for Abbott as he seeks to make tough decisions, just as Labor argues Abbott did to it when Labor was in government. No quarter looks likely to be given in this politically charged rhetorical conflict.

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has the potential to grow into modern Labor’s more nuanced ideological thinker, much like Howard was for the Liberals in the 80s when he supported necessary economic reforms embarked on by Labor. So far at least Bowen is publicly and privately supporting Shorten’s approach.

At this stage, the risk is that what the Coalition actually does do by way of reform remains piecemeal, rather than representing wholesale reform, as most economists will claim is long overdue. This runs the double risk for the new government of seeing it attacked on its left flank by an opportunistic opposition, as well as on its right flank by an underwhelmed ideological cheer squad.

If the Abbott government seriously wants to become a modern-day reforming equivalent of the Hawke and Keating years - or to some extent the Howard years also - it needs to provide serious follow-through on any recommendations of the commission of audit, as well as the promised tax-reform summit. If it does not, the structural adjustments necessary won’t occur and the government’s capacity to improve the economic conditions for future prosperity will be limited.

The profile of how Australia reformed itself in the 80s was a mirror opposite of how it might happen today. A Labor government argued the case internally for a new approach, armed with powerful personnel in cabinet making the case and the political capital of government. Elements of compliance by the Liberal opposition made doing so easier.

The Liberals in opposition - after years of refusal to embrace dry economic ideas - felt obliged to put ideology ahead of pragmatism, and the leadership of the likes of John Howard, Jim Carlton and others helped with such a transformation.

Will today’s Liberals in power be as inclined to put ideology first when they have more to lose?

The challenges for modern Labor are even more pronounced. Putting short-term tactical decision-making ahead of long-term strategic planning is Shorten’s current approach. Labor today looks very different to 30 years ago when Hawke (and the ACTU’s Bill Kelty) used their clout within the union movement to wrest support for change. Howes was prepared to break ranks over wages, but has been left isolated. And Shorten appears to be falling back on his union links rather than embracing the sort of clean-out that might usher in a fresh start.

.

So far... Fraser ruined the country then Howard wasted a once in a lifetime Chinese boom on getting the middle class addicted to welfare and now Abbott is destroying the economy and along with it all the hopes and dreams of every Australian.
Based on that Labors record is looking pretty good  :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 12^th, 2013 at 5:08am:

Buzz, just how would leaking those cabinet documents help Howard? He's got no need to do it - he isn't in politics anymore. Why would he go to the trouble and effort when his incredible legacy can speak for itself? He has far too much class to do that.

If you read all the threads they were saying that Howard could of leak the cabinet papers when he was Prime Minister. Anyhow how would he get the cabinet papers now when he is not in parliament.

So what is this incredible legacy that Howard has left us with.

I think you are like a classic “espontáneo” armpit. Bullfighting term for the jerks in the crowd who leap into the arena, make a few futile flourishes in the manner of a true Matador, then scurry quickly back to the terraces.