I share your concerns Michael. I am concerned that we have comments such as “assessing impacts on the competitiveness “, when all the PC provides is analysis of our “customers”? Surely we should compare competitiveness against competitors?

I also shudder when I hear the expression “market based mechanisms”. Yet public funding and tariffs are not part of any market based system. So where are these market based systems we keep hearing about?

The PC seems to have written their “liability exemption” into their report by providing the basis for almost any policy; they give some really good answers to all the wrong questions.

The last time the government spun and cherry picked a policy formulation document was the Henry Tax Review. The jury is still out on that one but I suspect this is heading in the same direction.

This will end in tears.

spindoc,
the wider australian electorate will not comprehend & will continue to be impressed by this kind of spin until the crap eventually hits the fan. Not too far into future I predict.

Spindoc, your observations are right but, to be fair, the Productivity Commission can only report on what it is asked and on this occasion it had no say in what it was asked. Michael

individual, are there wider issues here? That the government does this because it can? Does that reflect poorly on the electorate? If so why do we swallow this rubbish? Should we have an expectation that our media might be a little more informed or dare I say, even critical?

There is something I’m missing here.

Michael, don’t get me wrong I’m not blaming the PC, on the contrary, “tis a thing of great beauty and provides reason for all men and all policies and can forever remain blameless”.

The “Yes Minister” principle No 43 kicked in, never announce an enquiry or report unless you know the outcome.

The terms of reference set those outcomes and the PC has simply responded to them. As individual says, the problem is that we will not comprehend and will continue to be impressed.

Well done Sir Humphrey.

Spindoc,
A yes to each of five of your questions.

Yesterday was the coldest day since 1916. We've had the earliest snows in years. The sea coasts are still intact and not one of the global warming alarmists is claiming these events are evidence of global warming. Why? Their usual bleating is about extreme events.

Could they be wrong?

All of Australia is watching and shivering and thinking increased power bills for heating are not going to be pArt of their the answer.

Why are the idiots in Government still persisting in championing global warming strategies in the face of extreme cold in Australia.

Watch the support for carbon pricing and these idiots in Canberra plummet when Australians choose lower power bills ahead of freezing go death.

Tony Windsor I doubt anyone in Australia now takes you seriously.

The "Deals" in Oz government(s) - a bit sickening aren't they. Just how far are our pollies willing to go to get into or stay in power?

Of course, getting fibre-internet in Tamworth had nothing at all to do with Tony Windsor's decision to back a carbon tax, did it. Of course not. And getting the Greens on side to form government had nothing to do with Julia back-flipping on a C tax, did it. No, of course not. What can we be thinking?

Pokies. The big money-spinner for clubs - and, incidentally for revenue (that dirty, un-Labor untouchable - ugh, get rid of it, give it away, begone, out damn spot). What is our lifestyle, our culture, our heritage coming to, if the best we can do is to build clubs and provide questionable "entertainment" on the backs of heartache, destitution, loss of family, of fortune, or even of life? The dreaded "pokie". Still, the best government foresight can do is reluctantly make a deal with an Independent to make a feeble attempt to "limit" losses, by requiring a decision before starting the soul-destroying "fun" of chucking money down the drain. Good on Wilkie, fie on Julia. The lot should be banned. Just how low are we willing to let Oz culture stoop?

Bet on a horse, or buy a Lotto or a lottery ticket, ok. But sit, chucking money down the throat of a machine, for the inestimable joy of watching little wheels spinning - all the while in hope; hope of friendship -no; hope of fortune - no, not really. How Alone! How Sad! How utterly destitute and pointless! Just too, too sad.

And, just how much is an individual's vote really worth anyway? Maybe we should have "first past the post". The "preference distribution" system certainly can act to distort where any one vote may eventually land. if it could only go to your first preference, at least you would know where it went. But no, too simple, and could end up with a million-to-one dead-heat occasionally. Phooey.