Australian politicians have simply forgotten they are supposed to be 'representative'.
Since Fraser's push for parity in salaries between politicians and the public service, our pollies have come to regard themselves as executives, rather than policy makers.
This has put Labor pollies in particular in an obviously contradictory position; that of an employer trying to represent the employees.
The manager can't also be the shop steward.
Why did no one notice -or care- that the bulk of Krudd's money came from his wife's Labor hire firm?
No one in Australia has anything like the lurks, perks, glamour, glory and ongoing renumeration of the Australian politician, apart from other politicians.
Today, they 'represent' no one but themselves.

Queensland has a long-running problem with politics. Aside from a single CPNP term in 1929 - 1932, Queensland had a Labor government from 1915 - 1957, then we had a Country/National Party government from 1957 - 1989 and from 1989 - 2012, aside from a 2 year loose National/Liberal coalition forming a minority government from 1995 - 1998, we've had a Labor government. So, aside from 2 * single-term governments, Queensland has had a 42 year stretch of Labor followed by a 32 year stretch of Country/National followed by a 23 year stretch of Labor.

That's not good for anyone. Balance is the key, and 20+ year stints in power is not good for any government and certainly not for the State.

Borbidge's greatest political achievement was getting the LNP off the ground here in Qld - before that the coalition was a loose collection of public backstabbers. The LNP's greatest move was finding someone who shows some form of leadership to lead the LNP to victory in the 2012 election.

The Qld Labor had not been flavour of the month for many years, however there was no credible opposition - Beattie's last 2 elections and Bligh's first one should have been won by the L/NP coalition if they had a viable leadership team.

The change has been a long time coming - I don't think the ACL had *anything* to do with the change, however I don't see any good coming from the LNP/ACL coalition they are trying to form.

Only a secular government will guarantee any religious freedom and stability of government and sanity in education. The Labor government didn't want to correct the alteration made to the Education policy, which was a shame.

I can't see any viable Labor opposition being formed for the next election, but I never want to see another long *any* government reign like we've had in the past.

Here is one prominent Australian's take on why Labor lost the election - an opinion also held by Kelvin Thomson, the federal Labor member for Wills in Victoria. (From an email I received):

" Congratulations to Kelvin Thomson for making the valid point that much of the media have been trying to ignore:

There is no mystery about why Labor lost the Queensland election.
Anna Bligh's encouragement of rampant population growth in Queensland saddled the state with crippling infrastructure bills, and forced her to sell off most of Queensland's remaining assets.

The electorate did not forgive her for this breach of faith, or for their increasing cost of living, skyrocketing house costs, and sense of powerlessness as developers were allowed to trample over community objections.

Anna pretence that she was somehow going to turn things around with superb planning for Queensland's future infrastructure was always a lie. As Jane O'Sullivan showed in her Online Opinion article the huge infrastructure costs of an ever-expanding population -- over $200,000 per person -- were always going to break the bank.

Kelvin rightly suggests that Federal Labor needs to abandon its high immigration and high population growth policies.

His own 14 point plan would be an excellent start. See

http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/page/population-debate/default.asp

For his on-air remarks today see Sky News's AM Agenda on 26 March 2012
at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_18xEcPAPk&list=UUHJgaKR3Glj9bQW4VHYr35A&index=1&feature=plcp "

(You will need to reconstruct that link)

Dear Chrys,

According to the exit polls at the QLD election, the top reasons for voting trends were;

1. Cost of Living. 2. Service Delivery 3. Carbon Dioxide Tax.

Since the CO2 Tax will be the biggest contributor to across the board price increases these public concerns appear to be one and the same.

We keep being “told” by all ALP politicians and the majority of the commentariat that our stated rationale in QLD for voting the way we did is wrong, we actually voted for issues that are State based and nothing to do with a massage to federal government?

This week’s national Newspoll indicates “message sent” and “message ignored”. If these polls are to be believed, 72% of Australians will not vote for the ALP.

What is it about reality that the ALP and the commentariat don’t get?

The same old “what the ALP needs to do?” came out of the losses in WA, NSW, VIC and now QLD.

There seems to be not one single issue in your article that is remotely of any concern to Queenslanders specifically or Australian voters in general.

The “what ifs” you present for the ALP at the next election seem to be so far from reality and so irrelevant to the current situation that there is something fundamentally disturbing about such an obvious disconnect.

Is it academic isolation? Could it be ideological isolation? Could it be the Group Think afflicting the media? I wish I knew.

Not that it bothers me because the more the ALP listen to mitigation, justification and further “suggestions” from the progressives, the greater their annihilation at the next election.

There seems to have been an element of surprise from the media in this election result, possibly because the commentariat “wished” the result to be otherwise. If they were indeed surprised that serves to confirm just how disconnected they are.

I have never seen such overwhelming support from those who are part of the problem, the commentariat.

The Labor Party lost because they are untrustworthy, mindless ideologues playing to a society which exists only in their imagination.
Australia has moved past the idea that we are engaged in some form of neoMarxist class struggle, apparently, everyone that is, except University Lecturers and Left wing politicians.

As for the relevance of a new Progressive Left... The GREENS got 0 seats in the QLD election. That's your answer. There's nothing 'progressive' about a burned out social notion from last century.

There is only one way to vote: that is to vote for the opposition, The Shooters & Fishers, or Christian Democrats at every election until the Australian Royal Family (Labor, Greens & Liberal) stop acting as if they are Royalty.

No group hates Royalty more than the Labor party and yet many of their idolised past front bencher's can be traced via their pink-blood lines to former Labor leaders. The only problem Labor Politicians have with Royalty is that they are not technically Royalty. Being voted in apparently gives them the Royal entitlement to enact adolescent, ineffective, anti-growth, anti-human, draconian, expensive, illogical & deluded legislation. Not to mention their slobbering love affair with the United Nations aka the Despots Union.

The Labor strategy is to tax workers into oblivion, then pretend to be the champion of said financially stressed working families that Labor themselves have impoverished by profligate spending and a genetic incapability to identify core issues instead of focusing on CO2 (opps, you know the black stuff,carbon), pink batts, revolutionising education by building school canteens that have no volunteers, sexuality and subsidised, opportunistic boat trips to paradise.

Gee that is a good idea Chrys.

Labor can try to move into the fairy territory, now occupied by the greens. That should boost their vote to, oh about 8%, just like the greens.

I suppose you could add a few rusted on dills, & perhaps reach 10%. Every election just a few more of the true Labor supports of old recognise a labor party that has become the toy of academia, & the overpaid public servants, & wants nothing to do with real people, other than to con their vote out of them.

Like a badly aimed billiard ball, labor is cannoning around bouncing from pillar to post, & getting absolutely no where.

Yes go left old party, & die in the wilderness, you have out lived your usefulness.

Graham Richardson said it all in 'The Australian' this morning. Until the ALP recognises that their love affair with the Greens and the inner city people who identify with the Greens is killing them, they have no hope. To put the same thing another way, if the ALP goes to the next election with the carbon tax, they'll be slaughtered.

Energy prices are rocketing upwards. Most Australians want to be able to use their heaters in winter and air conditioners in summer at reasonable cost. "If the power comes from a coal-fired power station, so be it" says Richo. He might also have noted that every time some idiot local council decides people can't build near the coast, the ALP/Green vote drops again.

Mr Stevenson is as deluded as Labor if he thinks the ALP needs to move more left.

Just how far would that be? To the Italian GPS co-ordinates, the Greek Co-ordinates or the Obama Dream Team, who has just been outed for hiring 100% of the over 100 new attorneys to E Holder's Justice Department because they were leftists or extreme leftists, some of whom had never seen the inside of a court room in their entire working life as leftist organisers. One minor point, this type of hiring strategy is illegal.

Or maybe the ALP should send a fact finding mission to Spain where they can find that for every tax-subsidised Green job seven others were lost to UN sponsored science.

Or maybe to the left side of France where the female Mayor of one community is not allowed to enter the suburb because she is -- you guessed it female. Or where you can be killed by a legal migrant for being Jewish & French.

Hasbeen is correct.

Chyrs reflects the lefts ignorance and blindness. She basically concludes 'What if Labor ‘seizes the day’ and works to win back the disenfranchised left?' The mad hatter Katter got twices many votes as the immoral Green party. The people turned to the 'right' not the left. It is the embracing of the Greens that has led to Labours downfall. Great to see that after decades of socialist indoctrination in schools the people have rejected this failed secular dogma. A number of strong believers in the LNP. I hope the Labour party continue to embrace the Greens ensuring many more conservative victories.The latte sippers in Canberra might thing social engineers are champions but the general Aussie has rejected regressive stone age policy of the Greens.

Why must it always be about winning?
In the early days of the Federation, Labour (including several Labor leaders) didn't want the Government benches. They were content to hold the Gov. accountable, and offer “support in return for concessions”.
Anyone who believes a majority such as Newman now enjoys is a good thing is naive at best. One party systems are never good, regardless of ideology.
Without an effective opposition, Newman is almost certain to self destruct.
The only questions are, how long, and how badly?

Dear Grim

Look to an historical clue, probably about the same time as the recently routed NSW Labor and probably not as far into debt as they left us.

How bad? Apparently not bad enough to make them change their spots. One week back in government and Bob Carr is showing the same old mind set that NSW voters tried to get rid of.

A week is often a long time in politics and longer in 18 months. I see things just a little differently from most of the obviously disenchanted or disenfranchised; albeit, I predicted the political bloodbath?
I see the result as a reaction to absolutism and or extremely arrogant autocrats and their equally dismissive lieutenants?
A critique that applies equally to Krudd?
There simply is no place for fiscal conservative multi millionaires in a party that claims to espouse and or represent the values and aspirations of the working poor and the average battler on struggle street.
Labour will need to rebuild and move into the 21st century as a much more inclusive and democratic organisation that understands its role and the demographic it claims to represent?
It can only do that by returning to traditional core values and the pragmatism of the past; and indeed, once again embrace real reform and nation building vision; none of which is represented or achieved via privatisation; or foreign carpet bagging speculators.
Ireland didn't need them, nor did equally economically depressed Spain! And we need them like a hole in the head!
We need to start to once again represent the wishes and aspirations of our own people; not foreign speculators!
[We don't need them, just their investment funds?]
We have a super fund of over 1.5 trillion and need to make it preferable for local and international fund managers to invest here; rather than offshore in various tax havens or to gain tax reduction outcomes!
[Our so-called leaders need to finally understand; that 50% of something is a whole lot superior to 100% of nothing.]
We need to invest in our own people and their better ideas! We can and should embrace quite massive tax reform and vast simplification; and alternative energy; that is cheaper than coal-fired power.
This is very doable, but only if we reclaim our virtually stolen economic sovereignty and stop pandering to multinational debt laden debt funded speculation; that turns ordinary Australians into virtual economic slaves and or, mere tenants in their own country. Rhrosty.

Grim,
considering the comments by Clive Palmer that his CIA rant was to take the focus off Newman, implying there might be more dirt dug up, I would say the wheels will start falling off in about 2 months, maybe less.

The CMC said they were not looking at Newman BUT they are still looking at the dodgy donations made to his mayoral fund. The fact remains that 70,000 was donated over a short time by 7 different companies owned by the same joker - and - a property development was approved against council laws/guidelines.

Another fact is that Newman's brother-in-law tried to put his hand out for a contract after the flood. The web of complex company dealings is all there.

So how long before Queenslanders get pinged off trying to keep track of his business dealings - or watching to see if his family might get perceived extra concessions in business deals.

Already, Newman is set to replace people in the top jobs with his mates - which may be standard practice except he ridiculed Anna and the ALP for doing just that.

I think Queenslanders will be watching him closely as he was elected, not because people trust him but as a means to get the ALP out.

If Labor makes changes to democratise the party, and ditch Gillard and there might be a chance for them in 2013.

"a party headed by educated, critical thinkers whose policies are based on unbiased research, credible evidence and universal human values", using unbiased rsearch, credible evidence and universal human values is hardly going to sit well with the left.

Maybe "a party headed by humanities educated, agenda driven thinkers whose policies are based on advocacy research, selective evidence and win at any cost values" might be closer to something that would keep the middle left happier.

R0bert

Only the middle left, RObert?
Are you seriously suggesting Abbott and Co. are above such petty concerns?

Hello Rhosty,

I just wanted to say how impressed I was with your post. It’s so easy in today’s internet based society to simply pull together a bunch of someone else’s opinions, quotes and 6th form sociology texts, that we often miss the real talent of original thought.

So often we hear such as “disenchanted or disenfranchised”, “reaction to absolutism”, “arrogant autocrats”, “values and aspirations of the working poor”, “embrace real reform and nation building vision”, “foreign carpet bagging speculators”, virtually stolen economic sovereignty, “ which “turns ordinary Australians into virtual economic slaves”.

I couldn’t help but marvel at the pure originality and creative socialist orthodoxy embraced in your humanitarian symbolism. Too often we dismiss such international citizenship and ecological passion, as merely the prattling of poorly educated and socially self indoctrinated urban elites.

Fortunately, such thoughts are confined to the ultra-right wing realists who marvel at the utter incomprehensible drivel that is indulged by modern society. You are to be commended for your ability to take so many overdone socio-political constructs and turn them into something quite incomprehensible.

Incomprehensibility is a goal that more Australian’s should aspire to, you are an inspiration to those who are utterly incapable of original thought. I think you should be nominated as a future “Australian of the Year”. Don’t dismiss this as a pipe dream; remember we did this for Tim Flannery.

Keep up the good work and thank you for sharing your insights.

Grim, I didn't mention Abbott. I referred to a point made in the article and gave my take on what I think is a closer representation of a lot of left values. Not all.

When someone from the right publishes and article suggesting a push further to the right as being a solution and put's up a comment in a similar then they can have a similar response, maybe theologically educated rather than humanities though.

R0bert

RObert,
It beats me what you've got against the Left being educated in the Humanities, or following their ideological convictions in wanting to move the Party in that direction--that's the idea!

I think you make an excellent point, Grim:
"Why must it always be about winning?
In the early days of the Federation, Labour (including several Labor leaders) didn't want the Government benches", though I don't know about the rationale:
"They were content to hold the Gov. accountable, and offer “support in return for concessions”".
I think it would be an excellent tactic, as well as showing some backbone, if both parties gave up on popular politics and espoused their agendas fearlessly, giving the people real alternatives. I hope Newman (and Abbott next) takes his head and leads QLD further down the conservative/neoliberal path. The whole problem with the politics of both persuasions is they're manic about winning elections and thus they sell-out their ideals wholesale in favour of whatever it takes to get em over the line. And yes, the remuneration and the virtual celebrity status are now such that corruption of principles goes without saying. We need politicians with integrity who would rather wax eloquent from the backbenches than sit meekly on their hands in government. I'd like to see both parties hold the people accountable for their choice.

Squeers the main reason we don't want leaders educated in the humanities, or law for that matter, is that they are disciplines favoured by people who have failed arithmetic, & don't actually know that there are even more advanced areas of math. Trying to explain algebra to them is likely to give them a nervous breakdown.

We don't actually need leaders who have no idea that you have to earn money before you spend it. We need those who understand that if you haven't already earned the money you decide to give to someone, no matter how deserving, you are going to have to take it off someone else.

Just think Grease.

In fact it appears many of these humanities types think the idea of having to work, & earn money is rather dirty, & should only be done by others. This is also a trait often found in academics, & most unsuitable in a countries leader.

In fact in view of recently announced cuts in university budgets, it is probably one not suitable in academia either.

Hear Hear Hasbeen, I fully agree; at least with this sentiment:
"We don't actually need leaders who have no idea that you have to earn money before you spend it. We need those who understand that if you haven't already earned the money you decide to give to someone, no matter how deserving, you are going to have to take it off someone else."
I would love to see governments in Australia involved in more money making ventures instead of relying solely on taxation.
A few ventures which spring to mind might be:
A government owned (Commonwealth) bank
Gov owned national Telco
Gov owned insurance
Maybe even a Gov owned airline, let's be crazy if it makes money.
And yes, I'm well aware both 'sides' of Australian politics have indulged in selling off the business ute, but that's largely because both sides have embraced neoliberalism.
There was no way I was going to vote for Labor in this election, not after the most egregiously undemocratic action in amalgamating councils against the wishes of the vast majority of Qlders - the only result of which I've seen was a rise in my rates bill of 30% to pay for it.
But now I'm wishing I and a lot of others had.
Every government needs an effective opposition.
That means an alternative voice to neoliberalism -which really hasn't been working out so well over the last few years.

Grim - while state-run socialist economies everywhere have been collapsing through financial exhaustion and popular unrest, our 'neo-liberalism' has been doubling our collective wealth, over and over again.

If you think that's 'not doing so well' then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Squeers, I like the concept of the humanities but like theology a lot of it seems to start from some unquestioned assumptions and carry on from there.

In particular a lot of the junk around gender studies and the damage that's caused when that stuff is taken seriously by government in the real world.

R0bert

RObert,

in my experience there are two versions of all such disciplines as you allude to within the designation "Humanities"--such as the Gender Studies you instance. There's the real thing and there's the ignorant, populist misconception of it. From my studies within the humanities I can honestly say that the theory and methodology employed strains to be rigorous and unbiased, though qualitative as well as quantitative research is used and this doesn't prevent some people from producing twaddle. Of course no mode of study is above criticism, but it's simply not true that "a lot of it [humanities] seems to start from some unquestioned assumptions and carry on from there". This is only your deprecating idea of it--or perhaps you can cite an example?
I've studied within the Humanities for many years now and I'm sick of hearing it unfairly ridiculed and condemned in this ill-informed manner.

With all due respect I also think your statements above amount to an irrational attack, perhaps born in frustration but reflecting your own political-bias rather than any lucid criticism of Labor (or the Humanities). There's plenty to criticise Labor for and I generally enjoy your posts, but it seems to me all you're doing here is venting spleen.

Squuers perhaps some spleen. Suffering badly at the moment from the excesses of CSA and an ex all to happy to misuse a system backed by very dodgy research and ideology.

The absolute tripe mostly implemented by the left under the guise of social justice but which creates massive injustice and that few on the left are ever willing to confront (you being an exception).

R0bert

'Disenfranchised, Labor ‘true believers’ are disembarking the Labor train in disillusioned droves and voting for the Greens and Independents – or perhaps even Katter’s party instead.'

Errr no. Katter got 7%, the Greens vote declined 2% to 7% and the LNP vote went up by 16%... and the number of independents in the Qld LA fell to two. The decline in the labor vote was about 20%.

It would seem most all those disillusioned 'true believers' hopped onto the LNP train carrying them to a Campbell Newman landslide ... as the Labor polling day booth banners told them.

Truely astonishing ... tell the voters at the booth you are going to lose in a landslide and then expect them to vote for a loser... really who came up with that piece of deluded brilliance?

An Humanities trained Advisor?

Newmans first appointment was a Queensland Civil Engineer who was a Liberal Councillor in the Brisbane City Council to the position of Director General Main Roads and Transport. The Labor Party could never have done that.

JonJ, I can only assume you have been asleep for the past 4 years. Neoliberalism and the concomitant persistent deregulation of markets, -particularly financial institutions- culminated in the collapse of '08, which certainly didn't “double our collective wealth”. Check your real estate and superannuation values, and please don't forget inflation.
As for “state-run socialist economies collapsing” I think you're a little ahead of yourself. Since before '08, our bacon has well and truly been saved by nasty old socialist China.
You may not like their ideology or 'Humanity' (I certainly don't) but at least be honest enough to give credit where credit's due.
You've had that bridge for decades JonJ. Good luck with selling it, and God knows why you bought it in the first place.

It is highly documented fact that the chronological events of GFC BEGAN long before 2008 with the Clinton administration suing Fanny Mac etc in Federal Court.

The Clinton Democrats won the suit against the lending organizations which claimed discriminatory lending practices towards low income earners.

This is the start of the snow ball rolling down the hill.

To accuse the financial system of being 100% at fault is a gross exaggeration. They certainly played a significant part but when private enterprise competing as lending institutions is then forced by a court decision into lending to people who can not afford to repay the loan any reasonable person would conclude that the lawsuit is the primary cause.

A most recent book has come out alleging another component, Middle Eastern manipulation of financial markets when realities of the weaknesses of financial markets presented as another opportunity to 'attack' the West.

"It is highly documented fact that the chronological events of GFC BEGAN long before 2008..."
I quite agree, Joe. So did Neoliberalism.
Another, and I would argue much greater contributor to the crash so the gradual reinterpretation and eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagell act.
The utopian dream that unregulated markets will be of greatest benefit to everyone is just that. A dream. Allowing financial institutions to regulate themselves is precisely akin to giving your house keys to the guild of thieves.
In the absence of the Rule of Law, the strong will always exploit the weak.

Hmmm... A strange article. This is first I've heard the thesis put forward that religion was a major factor in the election result. One of the issues Chrys mentioned which has come up many times as a factor in the result - Traveston Dam debacle - only got one sentence!

But, as many posters have already pointed out, going "back to the Left" would only see Labor marginalized further. All those issues Chrys claims they ought to "go back to" are already held by the Greens. Yet their vote declined.
I think Chrys really misunderstands the feeling of the electorate. People don't want the Left in control at all. They perpetuate a victim-mentality, or guilt industry, are full of wannabe revolutionaries - socialists, communists, feminists, anarchists - can't manage money, and are determined to make successful people pay for being successful.
The reality is the vast majority of people are conservative: They want job security, a healthy wage, minimal crime, to relax, to enjoy, to feel pride in their past and themselves. The Left offer none of this. They want perpetual upheaval of "the system," conflated with a self-depreciating mindset, and a desire for a so-called progressive tax that will only send businesses broke.

The predicted result in Queensland, was embodied in a perception that Labour had deserted its core values and constituents?
There is a lesson here for federal Labour as it seeks to create a budget surplus?
Things it can cut without any further electoral harm is welfare for the rich?
They could do worse than jettison negative gearing. If landlords threaten as they did the last time this particular can of worms was opened, let them.
Sydney rents are already the most unaffordable in the entire English speaking world; and, further increases at a time of economic contraction, falling tax revenues etc/etc, would only harm the landlords' fiscal positions.
Altogether there is still around 24 billions handed over annually, as welfare for the rich.
People struggling to get by on a miserable $150,000 plus per, may not see themselves as rich!
They will point to the Macmansion and the massive mortgage. The solar hot water service, the solar array, and the two car garage. They will bitch about their private health insurance, private school fees, etc/etc, ad nuseum; and whine like hell about the tax they pay; all while selectively ignoring the privileges they enjoy; and their fellow Australians, 40% of who are living in poverty trap post codes, trying to manage endlessly rising rents and utility costs, on very low fixed incomes!
Welfare for the rich needs to be progressively rolled back; and very doable in a climate of gradually reducing interest rates/tax revenues etc.
With some of it redistributed to real and currently unmet need.
This would be a good start for Labour to reconnect with its core constituents and core values; and in so doing, limit further or future electoral harm.
It is often said, we can judge the real worth of a nation, by just how well it treats its worst off.
Increasing the financial lot of the worst off is good for the economy, which is at least 70% domestic and almost totally reliant on discretionary spending, which can only be improved, with long overdue wealth redistributing finally heading in the right direction. Rhrosty.

Thank you Rhosty.

More advice in the what others should do with their money category.

20-25% of rents go to other expenses not including interest. I recently had a conversation with a former house owner now a renter. Thinks renting is terrific by comparison, no maintenance no high mortgage payments.

Due to social legislation for rental properties I now have one response for everything, put the rent up at the slightest of reasons due to the lack of respect for other peoples property. The attitude of many renters is reinforced by laws that make the owner third in line for decision making. Government first, renter second.

I agree get rid of negative gearing over say a 5 year period. Otherwise the dislocation will be extreme.

No negative gearing and then the rents would be forced to reflect genuine market forces, which will be rents that exceed mortgage payments plus other expenses so that a profit will occur each and every month just as American landlords do. Landlords would no longer have to wait 10-12 years for their speculative properties to become investment properties, ie positive returns.

This would require about a 45% rate of increase in rents in Sydney other wise there would be no affordability for many small investors to invest in real estate. I could then retire early and you could enjoy watching another lefty concept go up in smoke.

Spin-doc; by name and nature? I lived through a time when we were the third wealthiest nation on the planet; when Menzies liberals included economic wets, and leaned a little further to the left than today's New Labour.
Why, Menzies kept all the publicly owned income earning infrastructure; and only reacted to it by allowing a co-existent private duopoly; that then created a real competition model!
Such pragmatism seems absent these days, with over 95% of corporate now head-quartered offshore; as a tax and cost reduction exercise.
We could and should reverse this trend, with real tax reform and the provision of the world's lowest cost energy; all doable, if future vision and our quite massive super savings are accessed; via, thirty year bonds and genuine tax reform.
This would also help our working poor by creating wealth building opportunities; that would simply have to include them!
Real tax reform would allow locally based firms to pocket the 7% of the bottom line; currently ripped out by compliance costs; and, the most complex tax act in the world?
New Labour is filled, with former staffers and people who have come directly from uni or union officialdom; and arrive, with little or no real world experience.
When we were the third wealthiest nation on the planet, we were a creditor nation to boot and able to affordablly embark on nation building vision; as embodied by the Snowy Mountain scheme; and both major parties were filled to the gunwales, with pragmatists with shared centuries of real world experience! Rhrosty.