YouDecide2007 - Lack of vision

Home

Lack of vision

By Richard Mayne,

It would seem that our political leaders have very little confidence in the ability of the electorate to understand issues and appreciate anything more than blatant pork barrelling politics and empty promises. It is really getting frustrating and this is as much an attack on Rudd as it is Howard; what is the point of a $34/31 billion cut in tax in an overheated economy?

Here is a suggestion to put to the ALP, there is no use saying this to the Coalition because after 11 years they have clearly shown that they are bereft of ideas. How about no tax cuts; how about instead of giving the average worker an extra $21 a week which will categorically be eaten up by the direct increase in interest rates brought on by this policy, we invest that money and more in the future of this great country.

Let’s think – what would $34 billion dollars get us? It would give us the chance to construct a high speed rail link between Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane; with one or 2 stops along the way think of the region centres we could create. It would also give us the chance to construct a truly fast fibre network across Australia. See at the moment, in typical short term Australian thinking, we look to the most cost effective means to provide internet coverage. This is pathetic; it’s the pay TV fiasco all over again. By laying out an extensive fibre optics network, we will have the infrastructure needed for today but one that can be dramatically improved as switching technology advances. This is not overly complex but our political leaders continue to let us down by focusing on very short term issues.

The debate the other night was boring, both Rudd and Howard played a game of chess – Rudd gained a slight ascendency in the game but it was all too predictable. This is Australian politics today, all sides too reserved to actually provide genuine leadership and vision. Rudd ran away from questions on global warming and Howard dropped nuclear power like a stone. We are facing genuine issues on climate change but again we don't get future thinking policies - Howard is a skeptic and Rudd offers tag lines as if signing Kyoto is an end unto itself.

Here is what I would love to see, an Australian political party that provides a socially progressive platform that is inclusionary, visionary and economically responsible. To date no party has displayed these attributes, they offer tag lines and cliches and the Australian electorate is left with little real choice.

Users' Comments

Display 5 of 18 comments

Not only by our Legislators.

By: AlanK (Registered ) on 25-10-2007 06:40

One only has to go back to what happened to CSIRO. The Governmant pulled the research funding by telling the CSIRO it had to become more commercial in it's approach. Due to this attitude, as a nation, we lost our leadhouse place in the world. ALL prior findings had been given freely to others to use, and make large profits from, and this all ceased. (Read "Fields of Discovery, Australias CSIRO" by BRAD COLLIS. Printed by ALLEN & UNWIN).
In my opinion, this same thinking has permeated through private enterprise as well. It seems that all players are looking for their investment to be returned, in full, within a 5 year period. Any longer timeframe, and you can forget about it. This National mindset has to change before thing can really change. I know that some Governmant used to have 5, 10, and 20 year plans, and it was astounding how close those future projections were to actually happened over time. Japan used to be admired because of their 100 plans, and I think it is time for us to start our own forward planning. If the taxpayers can see some benefits accruing from all of the extra tax contributions, they may be far more accepting.
The way things are now, we have been getting ripped off for years by taxes and charges. Look at what has happened since all wage earners were forced to have wages paid into bank accounts. With a captive audience we are charged whatever they like. Why do we not resume getting our wages in our hands. The Big End of town, and Government, has been looked after for long enough.
I recall, on $50000 a year, 52.5% tax & levies, super, insurances, house payments, and other charges associated came out of my pay packet, and I was left with approx. $5000 a year to spend recklessly on my family and other good stuff. Oh for the good old days in 1948 when the tax rate was 8.5% on a wage that was 7 times the av. weekly wage. This was shortly after the states handed over taxing powers to the Federal Government, and they had to learn how to become the 'rip-off merchants' of today.

» Report this comment to administrator

20 year plan

By: Joseph27 (Registered ) on 25-10-2007 07:08

Thanks for the input Alan, wouldn't it be great to look at a 20 year plan to get this nation focused. You are right though - everything is thought of in terms of fastest path to ROI - that is simply what happens when the market dominates.

Inasmuch as I am market orientated - I do believe that there is an essential role for government is constructing bariers within which business can build collectively towards tomorrow. If a government wants the best universities and research facilities - it can give businesses tax advantages that make such investments beneficial to the bottom line.

This doesn't seem possible though in the current climate - we seem to have constructed a society that is simply focused on todays acquisitions whilst our attention span has shortened to take in little more than headlines.

So how do we get back from here to help construct a society that actually has a longer term vision?

» Report this comment to administrator

20 Year Plan?

By: AlanK (Registered ) on 28-10-2007 12:33

I would prefer a 20 year plan managed by an independent panel. Fair enough to give some tax breaks to business to entice them to certain areas, but, these tax breaks should be of a limited duration only. Business, for too long, has wanted too much support from the tax payers, government, call it what you wish, to commence an enterprise from the initial stage, and then pocket ALL the profits.
Look at what happened with GMH. The Australian Government provided the funding for the first 5 years, and when it became profitable, GMH gave back the original investment, and from then on, pocketed [sent to the parent company] the profits.
What would GMH Aust have done if the enterprise had gone belly up? Not much!
I am not against a fair reward for a fair investment, but I am against tax payers’ money shoring-up businesses that are badly managed. Today, in my opinion, far too much goes to support business that should be left to stand or fall on its own strengths or weaknesses. I have never seen any government agency step in to support a green grocer who does not buy the fruit or vegies that his customers want, and is left with a lot of waste.
Over the years lots of Australian inventions have been produced overseas purely because NO Australian business or government or government department has cared to provide some development capital. One example is the ‘Gas Safety Valve’; remember it from ‘The Inventors’? That chap tried for years, and a West German company took it on, sells it here, and the rest of the world, for $50, and a few cents each item royalty is returned to him in Australia, which gives a minimum return to Australia. There must be scores of similar instances about which we know nought.

Of the billions in Superannuation Fund investment portfolios, could not some be farmed out as venture capitol? Some of the returns could be phenomenal.

I am indulging in some kite-flying here, but we do need to start thinking laterally. We have lost the plot over the past 20 years, and I feel that Australia, as a nation needs to have a different perspective, expectation, projection, assumption, presumption, and anticipation of what will be delivered in the future, NOT blindly following what some guru from overseas says is best for us.

» Report this comment to administrator

Getting damn annoying

By: Joseph27 (Registered ) on 04-11-2007 03:27

Okay so with 3 weeks gone and 3 to go this campaign is getting too annoying. With an army of reporters and pundits trying to make a living from commenting on every move and decision, the entire process is becoming, at best, farcical.

The Garret comment is indicative of this - he made a throw away line to a complete waste of time and space parasite in the form of Steve Price who then wants to grab headlines. Howard’s team jump on board and hope some of the mud sticks. Is this what we have come to expect as a mature democracy? Of course the ALP is not beneath some smearing but the complete lack of proportion is getting out of hand, as is the over abundance of reporting taking place everyday.

With 3 weeks to go – who’s going win? I am still on the Rudd train and believe he will win – I look forward to election night…. I especially look forward to seeing Howard hopefully lose his seat

» Report this comment to administrator

Garrett Gaffe

By: Doug (Registered ) on 04-11-2007 13:20

I for one hope what Peter Garrett said is true at least in part.

I think Labor will have a very sober look at the economy if they do win and sort out just what is affordable and sensible for Australia.

I would rather have my $20 spent on infrastructure and the future than as a short term tax cut that will fuel inflation and send more money into the already rich banking sector.

» Report this comment to administrator

Display 5 of 18 comments

Add your comment

[+] Show form

[-] Hide form

Only registered users can comment an article. Please login or register.

More comments...

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Our Sponsors

Our Friends

Who's commenting on what...

Currently Online