Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

Julia Gillard’s political woes shine the light on the failure of modern day spinners clinging desperately to a political communication technique invented for the 20^th century model of mass media. In the 21^st century, these techniques are proving increasingly out of date and so dangerously ineffective it could lose Labor an election when spin, ironically, should be key to winning elections…

Standard and well known spin techniques such as the ’seven second grab’, key messages, catchy slogans and carefully controlled media management have all backfired spectacularly for Ms Gillard. All of a sudden, these tricks look very dated prompting her to publicly reject this “very risk averse standard campaign model” and re-introduce herself as the “real Julia” in a desperate search for authenticity.

This move was a somewhat startling acknowledgment that the usual spin simply wasn’t ‘cutting through’. Techniques designed to win were, in fact, conspiring towards losing Labor the election.

Focus groups - unfairly dumping leaders for false infidelity?

So how is it the ALP’s crack campaign team, seasoned professionals whose job it is to know the business inside out, couldn’t predict that this ‘old spin’, on its own, wouldn’t work? They should have been even more aware of the dangers, given the current levels of cynicism around how Julia assumed office.

In fact, one almost wonders if there was even a communication strategy in place to deal with how the electorate may have responded to Rudd’s unprecedented and brutal assassination. Or was it so clever we almost missed it…?

Many people place the bulk of the blame for the campaign’s rocky ride at the feet of NSW Right leader Mark Arbib, who both secured and destroyed Rudd’s leadership. It is not only the role he is believed to have played in convincing Rudd to dump the ETS, a turning point for voters, but the risk averse, poll-centric, NSW Labor Right strategy, that he along with long term friend and campaign director Karl Bitar have continued to push as the best campaign model.

But it appears that the result has been panicky politics driven by focus group research, which has seen leaders dumped like 20-somethings dump lovers over false infidelities. Many argue their use of the focus group results is not accurate or effective.

Former staffer in the Carr and Iemma Governments, Mark Aarons, explains their technique involves targeting the least politically committed voters in marginal seats. Their theory is that “…these people determine who win government and their views should therefore predominate in policy-setting. In a bizarre reversal of conventional political wisdom, leadership is redefined as following such people by pandering to them.”

Aarons’ experience was that this strategy “led the (Iemma) government up a blind alley”, not reflecting mainstream voters who hated the policy idea” (in this instance the Kurnell desalination plant).

However, most say there is little wonder the Arbib-Bitar partnership believe in this model. Arguably it has won them office in NSW since 1995 and, maybe, even the Kevin 07 election. Why fix it if it ain’t broke? But election 2010 seems to have broken the mould. Time will ultimately tell.

Old spin doesn’t work for ‘real Julia’

These campaigns have been largely stage managed spin-fuelled fiestas, and none more than Kevin 07. And as Michael Gawenda points out in Business Spectator, Gillard 2010 is in many ways no more or no less stage managed than Kevin 07 was.

However, what is different is that she has only been PM for six weeks and the way in which Rudd was deposed. Going to the polls seems rushed…standard NSW campaigning?

What is interesting and maybe very clever spin, is this point made by Gawenda:

“Gillard had two major problems coming into this campaign: she had been involved in the assassination of Rudd and she was a woman. Gillard and her advisors, it seems, decided that any sign of aggression, of passion or even vision, would be turned against her - she would be seen as an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner. So for the first two weeks of the campaign she behaved as if she was on Prozac.”

So maybe this strategy was deliberate all along.

Play the standard orchestrated campaign cardboard cut-out; let it look like you are being played by the ‘faceless men’, because anything else would make you look like “an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner”.

And then announce the arrival of ‘real Julia’, who it now looks like has been brave enough to stand up to said men, and indulge the electorate with a soft, approachable and benevolent female leader.

Maybe sexist attitudes towards women in power have been grossly overlooked in how this campaign could and needed to be played.

It might actually be very clever indeed - an all together cleverer ‘new’ spin, a planned emergence of the real Julia as a natural evolution of the Gillard personality.

But then, the long term damage to the Labor party, brought about by the scary power of the faceless men, now emblazoned in the psyche of the electorate, still seems a high price to pay for this approach.

Using Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election as a case study, this is the first in a 4 part series examining whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model  are  now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century. Post 2 looks at the ineffectiveness of ‘old spin’, the role of the media, and the trust deficit. Post 3 examines whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

After 2 months of fierce struggle, highly expensive ads and the election of a new Prime Minister (PM), the Federal Government and the resources industry have finally reached an agreement on the now scrapped RSPT.

One can wonder if it has resulted into a win-win situation or, given the new neutral name of the tax, if the resources industry is not the main winner of the deal. Is the glass half full or half empty?

From a political point of view, the MRRT appears to be the first victory of Julia Gillard’s new role as Prime Minister. Her ability and her efficiency in leading negotiations surely took a weight off the Labor Party’s shoulders for the election now being held on August 21.

The original RSPT was definitely too disconnected from the way market works whereas the MRRT shows far more respect for market conditions.

However, it appears that former PM Kevin Rudd was close to an agreement and that Julia Gillard only had to seal the deal, probably with larger concessions. So her victory has somewhat of a bitter taste for taxpayers.

From Rio Tinto’s, Xstrata’s and BHP Billiton’s point of view, the MRRT is a genuine victory. Indeed, Gillard’s Government has conceded on:

-          Lowering the rate of the tax from 40% to 30%.

-          Raising the rate at which the tax applies from 6% to 13%.

-          Removing the retroactivity of the tax.

-          Applying the MRRT only to iron ore and coal mining companies.

This is good news for big mining companies - especially for those that extract gold and base metals - and testifies of their strong lobbying power on the Federal Government.

On the other hand, medium and small mining companies have lost out given that they were not part of the negotiations.

In the end, the resources industry will have to share a bit more of its colossal profits, logically enough for the Federal Government to help, finance its flagship projects (the national broadband network, climate change, etc.) and lay down a stronger tax base during the resources boom.

The MRRT will enable a better distribution of wealth among Australian people, which was the primary goal of taxing the resources industry. But picking who won the debate seems a fairly simple task - just ask Rio Tinto or BHP. They can hardly contain their delight to have, again, emerged into positive territory.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

The Australian Government’s RSPT proposal

The Federal Government’s proposed ‘Resource Super Profits Tax’ (RSPT) announced in the May 11^th Budget seeks to tax ’super’ profits by resource companies made from all non-renewable resources at a rate of 40% from July 2012. Super profits are defined as profits that exceed a relatively low threshold rate of return, essentially the risk-free rate of return. In its Budget proposal the government sees the risk-free rate in this case equal to the yield on a ten-year Government bond (LTBR), which is currently 6%.

The RSPT would, if approved, supplant the crude oil tax regime and function in conjunction with State/Territory royalty regimes.

Through the RSPT the Australian Government proposes to become in effect an associate of mining companies by crediting 40% “of accumulated project losses and undeducted capital expenditure even if a project should be closed”.

However the Government does not immediately fund the joint venture. It is the mining company which holds 60% of the joint venture that has to “lend the Government its share of capital costs” (40% at the LTBR).

Since the Government holds 40% of the joint venture, it proposes taking 40% of the mine’s exploitation profits. These profits will nevertheless be reduced by RSTP allowances.

Because 40% of the project is guaranteed by the Government, mining companies should borrow 40% of the total capital of the project at 6% (LTBR = risk free rate). Based on this assumption, the Government starts taking profits as soon as the rate of return on the project outstrips the LTBR.

In theory, the Government believes that, even if the RSTP “reduces” profits, it should not have a negative impact on investment; and that the return on funding needed to finance the balance of the project remains identical.

According to KPMG if this tax is implemented “Australia will have a higher effective tax rate” than those of Canada, Brazil, China, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Argentina.

Current debate

1.       The Australian Government’s position

• The Government, supported by a range of economists, argues that “the RSPT will provide a more appropriate return to the Australian community from the exploitation of its non-renewable resources compared with the current charging arrangements.”
• Treasury claims that RSPT will be a more efficient means of collecting a rightful share of the returns to the community and of removing obstacles to mining investment and production. Treasury says the RSPT will foster greater investment and employment in the resource sector.
• According to the Australia’s Futures Tax System Review’s Consultation Paper, Australia is currently shifting towards profit-based royalties in the resource industry. Other OECD countries with important resources endowments have already adopted profits-based taxation, which has influenced the standards for Australia.
• According to Econtech, a prominent economic modelling agency, under the RSPT scheme mining investment should in the long run rise by 4.5%, jobs by 7% and mining production by 5.5%.
• According to Treasury Secretary Dr Henry, the resource industry has enough projects on the agenda for the next 30 to 40 years and investment should continue, despite the claims of the miners.
• The introduction of the RSPT is supported by 20 Australian leading economists. They emphasize that “the existing royalty system reflects the fact that it is desirable to levy a charge for access to publicly owned mineral resources, in addition to normal corporate income tax.” However they admit that the finer details still need to be negotiated.
• According to S&P’s associate director, “the mining tax would have no implications on Australia’s credit rating, which is a barometer for a nation’s sovereign risk.” Australia has been rated AAA since 2003. He adds that “the revenue projected to be earned by the tax, $12bn in the first two years, could strengthen the rating given the positive influence on net national income.” In 2009 Australia reached its 19^th consecutive year of growth, with a GDP above 2.7%.
• According to the Coface (a French country-rating agency), “Australia has without doubt the prize for excellence in all categories, as much in terms of its debt or deficit.” The International Monetary Fund predicts that in 2010 Australian national debt will stay below 20% of the GDP.

In the face of strong opposition from the mining industry to RSPT, the Government has embarked on a controversial $38 million advertising campaign to counter what it sees as misinformation. However at this stage, voters are strongly divided on the issue, with most against the measure in its current form.

2.       The Australian mining industry’s position

The major players in the mining industry have reacted strongly against the tax and have monitored a major political and advertising blitz. This includes the release of studies and reports.

• In a study commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, the Radar Group said that “institutional investors believe the implementation of the RSPT will have a highly detrimental impact on both the Australian equities market and the Australian economy over both short and long term.” Between the announcement of the proposed tax on May 2^nd and May 29^th, Rio Tinto shares have dropped down 5.5%, BHP 4.8% and Fortescue Metals 9.17%.
• The report also emphasizes that no less than 66% of investors surveyed believed that the proposed RSPT would have a significant impact on future institutional investment in the Australian resources sector while 33% believed it would have a moderate impact.
• In another report commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, KPMG argues that “capital markets and in particular debt markets, will be unable to price funding at the LTBR due to risk and pricing issues.” For instance, the bankers of Fortescue Metals - one of the leading producers of iron ore - withdrew from Fortescue’s outstanding projects on this basis.
• The KPMG report also stresses that a higher effective tax rate and funding costs above the LTBR aim at reducing net present value returns of mining projects. Because of risk and pricing issues, the capital market, and more specifically debt markets, will not be able to set the interest rate the same as the LTBR. In the end the report is positive the RSPT at 40% will severely impact the mining sector. Recovery for the sector is only expected to be on the long term.
• The mining industry’s arguments have been strengthened by poor communication and industry consultation by the Australian Government which has led many financial and economic experts to claim that investors seeking to buy Australian assets or sell Australian holdings could be faced with uncertain tax outcomes. This lack of transparency has generated what investors regard as “change law risk”/ Sovereign Risk, which creates uncertainty. Some observers though question the term “Sovereign Risk” as it is more generally linked to company asset expropriation by government, breakdown in the rule of law etc.
• The prospect of tax grabs with no prior consultation or warning - and, worse, the prospect of retroactive tax grabs - has generated uncertainty. It takes mining corporations years of investment before making any actual returns and now, in addition of the risk associated with their operations, they also have to take into consideration the possible decisions the government might take about them.
• The industry argues that profits trigger future investments. The higher the risk, the greater the expected return to justify the risk. Overtaxing profits maintains low productivity, low risk and low pay industries. The interest charged on the Government’s unpaid contributions is based on the risk-free rate, which means interest payments will be too low to prevent risks and costs from being borne by miners, and therefore too low to encourage investments.

My view

Such a major change at time when Australia and the world is emerging from the global recession has surprised many. The RSPT appears as an improvement on the current approach but in some areas the proposal made by the Treasury appears to be too theoretical and disconnected from the reality of the market.

In the end negotiation will be necessary to reach agreement between the government and the mining industry. At the moment, both sides have deeply entrenched positions, and a short term solution is not expected.

However, I believe that political pressure and the looming federal election later this year is likely to see a compromise achieved. This is likely to take into consideration the risk incurred by mining companies and the need for clarity for those institutions to fund more projects.

Any compromise or new scheme will also need to better balance the drivers of future growth and a better return to the Australian people. Australian voters will be watching closely. In the end, perhaps at a reduced level, the RSPT appears as a fair and necessary measure but the timing of its implementation and the way it currently works is definitely not ideal.

Arnaud Eard

Arnaud comes from Paris and gained a MA in International Political Economy at the University of Sheffield. He has been interning at Bluegrass Consulting since May 2010.

As the wheels on the Rudd train rattle and loosen and the destination once so bright now looks foggy and unknown, the pressure is not just on the train driver, but his top engineers and navigators, whose youth have many asking, do they know what they’re doing or are they just on for the ride?

Is someone’s age a genuine indication of their professional ability and skill or is it just an easy target? Take Adam Boland, Channel 7’s boy wonder who at just 24 began steering Sunrise to “national dominance 10 years ago”. Clearly his age wasn’t a hindrance.

On the other hand we have the Primer Minister’s top advisers Alister Jordan, Lachlan Harris (both 30) and Andrew Charlton (31) who featured in Tuesday’s Australian newspaper under the title Novices at the wheel of state. (Note: Peter van Onselen the journalist who wrote the story is only 34).

Whilst running the country vs. running Sunrise may seem an inequitable comparison, what is it that makes one young manager a ‘wonder boy’ and the others ‘novices’?  It may simply come down to how they tackle the challenge.

Age discrimination - or simply too young?

With more and more young people ascending to management positions, it is often these young highly capable managers and advisers who face roadblocks because older people use their ages against them.

In the case of the PM’s three young guns, are we simply seeing an older caucus speaking out because they are struggling to accept the tremendous power these youthful advisers have, and now that things have gone bad, looking for the easiest excuse?

Then again, it makes every sense to ask, especially as the wheels are coming off, is there a lack of experience here which needs to be addressed? And, are these young advisers doing what they should to ensure their short years do not translate into a lack of experience or strategic ability?

Politics not friend nor mentor

Adam Boland took steps to counter his young age. “Being so young, I had to become a student of TV, because I wasn’t around for the first 20 years of television… I’ve also surrounded myself with people such as Graeme Rowland who has been there for most of that time.”

Rudd’s advisers appear to really only be surrounded by Rudd, and the nature of politics is such that adopting experienced Labor party mentors to tell them the political lessons of 20 years ago…is not really possible.

The ‘trust’ and ‘confidentiality’ inherent in the role of a political adviser, spurned by the ever present threat to their boss’s leadership, leaks, and the need for the PM’s office to look like it knows what its doing, makes it hard to see how they could engage a mentor to bounce their ideas off and learn from.

And there is the obvious point, that Rudd would also be worried that asking the advice of others would be perceived as a sign of weakness on his part, and no doubt there would be those who would like to interpret it that way.

Learning on the job

So while a mentor may be out of the question for Rudd’s young men, there is no limit to these three advisers becoming ’students of politics and public affairs’. As Bernard Keane said in Crikey last week, talking more directly of Rudd, “there is no shame in learning on the job…John Howard almost managed to make himself a one-term wonder, but went on to do OK.”

A point made in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald was that van Onselen ‘forgot to mention’ that Bob Hawke had many successful ‘young buck’ advisers, while John Howard’s chief of staff in his first term, Grahame Morris, “was a man with years of experience when he was forced to fall on his sword.”

Maybe if Rudd’s three advisers were older they would have remembered first hand when in 1987 the Hawke Government introduced a 40 per cent profits tax on off shore petroleum and the industry’s response was by all accounts similar to that of the proposed super profits tax, one of the main issues behind all this finger pointing.

If they had worked around government then, would this be an example of how they would have had the ‘experience’ critics say they lack? No doubt this experience may have helped, but ultimately the challenge is as Keane says”…communicate effectively the case for reform, detail the flaws in the arguments of your opponents, and show you’re determined to achieve what you set out to do.”

What you don’t know - the past and human behavior may tell you

Communicating effectively and detailing the flaws in the opposition is in essence the crux of Alister and Lachlan’s job and on a positive note where they actually have proven they can do it; Lachlan through developing and managing the media strategy for Rudd in the 07 election, earning him his job today, and Alister through his years working by Rudd’s side in shadow government, most effectively and expertly causing political damage to the Howard Government over the AWB “wheat for weapons” scandal.

Showing that you’re determined to achieve what you set out to do may be something they have less experience with, and something they need to man up about when dealing with ‘the man’, who’s ultimately responsible for this.

Experience isn’t everything, and years passed do not guarantee a pay off in the rise of one’s intelligence, especially in the areas of social and public affairs, where instinct and generational understanding is key. But if young advisers look to the past to manage the present and future political challenges, their chance of success will no doubt improve.

For as we know, human behaviour and responses are more often than not predictable. This is the very reason the Kevin 07 campaign was designed and built around Abraham Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of human needs‘.

You are never too old to ask for help

The lesson to take away may be that you’re “never too old to ask for help“, something Rudd was told recently by Jack the Insider. He tells the PM that Hawke and Keating are real assets for him and the fact that their advice is not sought “is staggering”. “If a government finds itself in trouble as this one has, it would be sensible to go first to the caucus and then place a call to the old salts; the combat hardened political men of yore to seek advice.”

At the end of the day, its safe to say, no one is ever experienced enough, but how they manage that, whether they ask for help or not, is what proves are they driving the train or should they get off at the next stop?

Ruci Fixter

The opposition has made it clear - “NO ETS”.

So, in another classic example of political acrobatics, it would appear that Penny Wong has done a 180 on her choice of negotiating partners.

On the 22^nd of December last year… some 40 days ago, the Climate Change Minister ruled out negotiating with the Greens to get the ETS through.

And now it would appear those comments aren’t so fixed in stone after all…

Today, Penny Wong will meet with the Greens Deputy Leader to try and nut out a solution for the ETS.

I wonder what will come of it… - Will we see the Government committing to a 40% reduction by 2020 that the greens were touting last year?

Unlikely… but surely there will have to be a compromise… the question however is… What will it be….??

In the words of Ban Ki-Moon - the summit just “could not end in failure”. Why? Well the concerns for most surrounding the success of the summit lay directly at the heart of international law and international negotiation… the basis and structure for the United Nations.

With the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan all still treaties and all still in effect, the “Copenhagen Accord” is merely a piece of paper that tells the world… “We haven’t wasted your tax-payer dollars… no, really… we promise!”

Political will, national promises, economic direction and public pressure just wasn’t enough to overcome the key issue that many nations had moving into Copenhagen… National Sovereignty.

And the final outcome of the summit seems to reflect that very point.  Despite many nations coming together forging a sense of cooperation and collaboration, national sovereignty remains supreme. All nations coming together in unity is one thing… and despite everyone’s best intentions, I really cant see how binding agreements with threat of financial penalty and legal action can be made collectively with all the world cheering along, especially on such a diverse and complex issue such as Climate Change!

There have been no quantified targets for emission reduction. Even the 50% by 2050 that was in early drafts couldn’t make it through the grueling negotiations. The action plan as it currently stands is that industrialised countries will inform the UNFCCC secretariat by 31 January, the extent to which they will cut their emissions after 2012 (when the current phase of Kyoto runs out). The emerging economies or developing nations will tell the UNFCCC what they plan to do to control their emissions. However… no one will be legally bound to any commitment.

The reference to transparency in the text I guess is something significant, because what it means is that for the first time ever, actions by countries can be globally assessed for all to see. However, there is no verification anywhere of the actions undertaken in the smaller nations of the developing world… not unless they are paid for by the developed world.

And finally… there is no detail at all on any of the elements within the accord. There is a reference to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, as well as the need for quantified action by both developed and developing countries. Great… BUT how will this target be achieved… your guess is as good as mine.

I guess really we will have to wait for the review of progress… in 2015.

What WAS actually achieved…? Well… see below -” The Carbon Cost of Copenhagen“

16,500 delegates from 192 countries, 5,000 journos and 40,000 eco-campaigners amounting to over 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, (roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006). The organisers laid 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals were served and visitors busily sipped over 200,000 cups of coffee.

Cartoon by Paul Thomas (UK Daily Mail 08/12/09)

Australia sent 114 delegates to the conference (a few more than Britain’s 71 delegates).

114 people traveling to Copenhagen amounts to around 1817 tonnes of carbon emissions (or 2500 peoples annual emissions in Malawi… ouch!).

Thoughts? Comments?

Well, well, well… you can’t say that no one saw it coming (Blueblog 16 Nov 2009).

Behind deposed Finance, Infrastructure, Ports and Waterways Minister, Joe Tripodi’s tears on Nov 15 just after he was dumped by the then NSW Premier Nathan Rees, was a furious, tactical and vengeful factional warlord - ready to take matters in his own hands… with a little help from fellow warrior - Eddie Obeid.

It took less than three weeks to mount the spill that cut the man (who Tripodi and Obeid installed as Premier only the year before), down and put him in the corner while 47 out of 68 Labor MP’s orderly lined up behind their faithful and stuck the knife in - much like the scene from the movie Flying High no doubt.

With Nathan gone, in swings A.B.N. - (Anyone But Nathan)… Frank Sartor, Kristina Keneally, I don’t think it really mattered - certainly not to the ALP State office. It was just simply time for Nathan to go.

Much like Tony Abbott, as the “ideological love child” of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop, ascended to greatness as Federal Opposition Leader two days before… the “factional love child” of Tripodi and Obeid emerges as the victor in the NSW Government Party Room - All hail Premier Kristina Keneally!

What does this mean to the people of NSW?

• A Cabinet reshuffle of the reshuffle the month before… (It really is hard to keep track of who’s who in the zoo).
• I’d say a bit of money being spent on stationery reprints and office signage.
• Maybe a boom in the elocution training business, by way of lessons for the new leader, to try and smooth out that Ohioan accent and perhaps give her a bit more of a ‘dinky di’ feel that will appeal to the people?
• Some white-anting from the discarded former leader, Mr Rees?

So other than the Prime Minister being slightly annoyed (… understatement?) and a mental flash-image of watching CNN or Fox News as you tune into Channel 7, 9 or 10 each night… not a lot has really happened!

One good thing that has come out of all of this, is the fact that Kristina and Carmel now lead the first two-woman executive in the country… that is a move for equality, I guess.

However, I’m going to go out on a limb and say - I doubt that this point was at the forefront of ALP Honourable Members’ minds in casting their votes.

What are your thoughts? Comments?

If you thought living through 16 months of detention was bad enough - imagine being asked to pay $161,684.60 for the exclusive privilege.

Mr Kasian Wililo was detained for his unlawful arrival to Australia in 2005. Kasian has later fell in love, married and had his 2 kids (with the 3rd on the way) for the country and is now being asked to pay for the costs involved in his detention.

Apparently any former detainee who is not granted a Permanent Protection Visa or Humanitarian Visa is billed for their time in detention, and any costs associated with their subsequent deportation. However… - what about those who are granted other types of visas? - spouse, employment etc.

Mr Wililo was granted an onshore temporary spouse visa late last year and received the bill in the mail dated May 2008 advising him he had 30 days to pay.

Keep this in mind… - there are over 350 refugees with debts amounting to over $7.5 million currently on the department’s books and over 95% of all detention debts are eventually written off….

In all honestly - should we really be charging refugee’s (who come to this country with nothing at all) hundreds and thousands of dollars to stay in detention that they have not asked to be in??

Debate will heat up in Parliament House this afternoon as the government introduces legislation to amend the Migration Act to “remove the requirement that certain persons held in immigration detention in Australia be liable for the costs of their detention. The Bill would also extinguish all immigration detention debts outstanding at the time of commencement of the legislation”.

Although the opposition has stated its objection to the legislation - there are a few coalition members who look set to cross the floor over the issue.

What do you think? Should the refugee’s have to pay? Or should the government write off the debts?

Peter Costello - Source: www.smh.com.au

Sad news from Victoria - Peter Costello announced today that he will not stand for re-election for the seat of Higgins at the next federal election (whenever that may be).

I am amazed at the harsh comments that have popped up on the news.com.au and SMH websites by various readers / bloggers.

For someone that has made a huge contribution to Australia, surely he deserves at the very least a quiet tip of the hat even from his opponents?

Just like I have asked before; where would we be today without the work of Paul Keating during his tenure as Treasurer and PM, and the economic reforms of his era, I ask - where would we be today if it hadn’t had been for Peter Costello’s work between 1996 and 2007 and without the reforms he took our nation through?

I wonder if we will be saying the same in years to come about Wayne Swan?

I wish him well in his future endeavors, wherever they take him.

Do you have any thoughts on his departure? If so, drop me a comment below….

Nathan