Just wondering.

When can we expect our politicians to stop looking backwards, and instead start formulating policies that are relevant, coherent and constructive, and that demonstrate a sense of responsibility to the Australian people?

We can all pretend to retrospective omniscience, Mr Leyonhjelm. But ultimately all you can offer is nothing more than hot air and bluster. Continuing to blame previous governments for [insert hobby-horse topic here] is essentially a sign of fundamental, even terminal, weakness.

Sadly, the Abbott campaign ahead of the last election proves conclusively that we, the electorate, respond enthusiastically, viscerally even, to negativism. Voting "against", rather than voting "for", seems to provide a warm glow of self-congratulation to our communal psyche, in a manner that exposes a deep fear of actually having to think before we vote.

That's not a swipe at Abbott, but an observation on where our entirely superficial approach to the election of our government has landed us. If David Leyonhjelm has any value at all to the Australian public - in itself a highly debatable point - it is as a constant reminder that we get the politicians we deserve.

Well opinion pieces are just that David, opinion.

Julia may well have proscribed to the theory that what was fair for her generation, was also fair for all those who follow?

That a good education in a land as wealthy as ours is almost a right?

Always providing it was a means tested right, so as to make it both affordable, and give those with the ability to succeed, the basic tools with which to do so?

For mine, the Abbott government is on the right track, and instead of providing grants to schools or state government agencies, with their often top heavy administration fees?

Give the same level of means tested funding to the student, who is then free to use this funding where it produces the best result!

Meaning, and given fully informed parents, a drift away from poor performing schools, who will have no other option than cut out the dross!

And the real fear of a unionized workforce! Who put so called teachers, their perceived rights and a well padded pay packet ahead of the kids they claim to care about?

Moreover, given a direct funding model rather than federal government grants, the states will have few other options than to grant schools far more autonomy; and only as a cost cutting measure, given that one measure could reduce the pressure on their funding mechanisms, by as much as 30%, the estimated average cost of a centralized administration?

Replete with the double and triple handling that it then requires.

To be fair, Julia operated through the calamitous GFC, and through her and Kevin 07's stewardship, got us through it virtually unscathed; and with the admiration of the IMF, and some of the world's leading economists.

For mine, it never was a case of overspending by the Rudd Gillard government, just revenue shortfall, and able to be rectified even yet, by the simple expediency of eliminating tax avoidance in all its forms and guises! And, just too easy!
Rhrosty.

'When can we expect our politicians to stop looking backwards'

Well Pericles when the Labour/Greens have a good look at what stimulus and giving away tax payer money has done to Greece. Until the regressives learn basic maths they will need to be reminded of reckless spending and promises that can't possibly be fulfilled whether in the name of Gonski or any other 'hallowed' terminology.

Australia is a sovereign currency issuer, and therefore has unlimited credit. The time to tighten fiscal policy should have been in the boom, when bigger surpluses could have prevented the interest rate rises. But now inflation is under control and interest rates are at record lows.

So instead of worrying about short term budgetary considerations, it makes sense to support policies that increase long term productivity.

Particularly as, had the government cut aggressively to balance the budget, it would have been a dismal failure, as rising unemployment would've made the population much worse off, and the falling tax revenue would still prevent the budget from balancing.

Forcing austerity onto a fragile economy has failed everywhere else, and if we try it here it will fail here too.

University fees. Strictly user-pays, and scholarships for the clever but poor. There is no other sane way.

There are many sane other ways, ttbn, including financing it from the increased tax revenue, When governments remove the financial barriers to prosperity we all benefit.

I agree that allowing university to extend the range of subjects without any control of numbers was wrong. Preschool and infants school teaching does not need three or four years of university education on top of six years of high school. Neither does basic nursing, accountancy or electronic media and many other fairyland courses.

Forty or so weeks of a high quality course might be necessary for the senior nurse or two on duty in a major hospital but that should come after basis training such as that undertaken by the senior officer in a two man ambulance crew hospital and two or so years of on the job experience. A year or It should be relatively easy to estimate the number of students who are likely to find employment in each particular industry, at the end of their tertiary education.

If Australia is to provide education for overseas students (aimed to help lift their economies) then it should be in top tier subjects that demand high quality intellects. We might be more help to underdeveloped countries if we offered their more competent students high school boarding scholarships to our selective high schools and expand that section of our education system.

Aidan Quote "Australia is a sovereign currency issuer, and therefore has unlimited credit. The time to tighten fiscal policy should have been in the boom, when bigger surpluses could have prevented the interest rate rises."

You are missing a VERY important factor with that statement, if you print too much money with nothing to back it up with no one will want your FIAT money. Eventually your dollars will only be worth cents.

Many on this forum predicted the NDIS was a financial time bomb, which is now becoming a reality.

The jobs created by NDIS are none productive jobs they don't create any wealth they just suck up taxes.

Labor gets into power gives the people LOTS then the Liberals get into power and have to fix the Labor mess.

No, Philiip S, I haven't missed it at all. FIAT money is backed by the need to pay taxes, and internationally our dollar is backed by our exports.

But more importantly, I'm not advocating printing too much money; you're advocating printing too little! A balanced public sector budget won't solve our economic woes, and is likely to exacerbate them when the private sector budget is unbalanced.

There's a simple test of whether too much or too little money's going into the economy: the inflation rate. When inflation's high then either fiscal policy needs to be tightened (cutting the deficit or increasing the surplus) or monetary policy needs to be tightened (increasing interest rates to encourage the private sector to take more money out of the economy or put less in).

But right now inflation's low so we should be doing the opposite. But loosening monetary policy isn't working; interest rates are at record lows, but business investment is weak. So the responsible course of action is to loosen fiscal policy.

The jobs created by NDIS greatly improve people's quality of life, and for that alone they're a worthwhile use of government money. But more importantly it can enable disabled people to do productive jobs. It will take time, but we can expect it to pay off in the next boom.

The government's mess is not Labor's... yet. But this idiotic austerity policy is likely to leave Labor with a mess to fix next year.

Governments all seem to be struggling to balance their budgets.
They just do not seem to be able to find the right way to do it.

What the majority of them have not realised is that the old rules have changed !

The old rule of either pushing money into the economy or austerity are
now redundant.
Economists are slowly realising that the game has changed.

No longer is money the regulator, it is now energy stupid, to not coin a phrase.
What has happened is that there is not enough cheap oil and the economy
cannot afford the expensive oil.
Goldielocks is dead !
There is no just right price.
The price of affordable oil is lower than the break even price of the expensive oil.
As the operational mix price of these sources rises the economy will
suffer. There is a difficult juggle that will have to be done if the
production of expensive oil falls faster than the fall of cheap oil.

How do you balance what you can afford to buy against the rising price
of the cheap oil ?
It is this conundrum that has caused the current glut and reduced demand.

Nice try, Bazz, but the problem is that the governments have picked the wrong TIME to balance their budgets, not merely the wrong way. Pushing money into the economy is still effective, but it doesn't suit their political agenda.

Oil is much cheaper than it was a few years ago. And it accounts for a much smaller share of the economy than it did a few decades ago. It may or may not cause big problems in the future when it gets scarcer, but it's not the cause of the current trouble.

'Nice try, Bazz, but the problem is that the governments have picked the wrong TIME to balance their budgets

Nice try at economics Aidan however can you name one surplus that the Federal Labour party has had in the last 20 years. I take it that you and Labour believe its always good to promise a surplus but never deliver it no matter how good/bad the economy is.

The author, "Like a bitter army retreating from the field of battle with no regard for the civilians left behind, Gillard buried land mines throughout the budget for future ministers and taxpayers to negotiate.

The Abbott government has a responsibility to extract the country from its budget hole. It should not make excuses and say that it is all too hard. Regrettably, that is exactly what it is now doing.

But we need to remember who got us into the budget hole in the first place. Bill Shorten's windy budget reply speech – heavy with spending on free university degrees and increased research and development – shows us how well the ghost of Julia Gillard lingers on."

Very well said!

onthebeach,
"The Abbott government has a responsibility to extract the country from its budget hole."

No it doesn't. The responsibility is to the Australian people, not to a budgetary outcome that would leave the people worse off!

Nice try, runner.

>>Nice try at economics Aidan however can you name one surplus that the Federal Labour party has had in the last 20 years.<<

Running a surplus simply means that the government is extracting more in taxation than it is actually using. This is a sure way to strangle the productive section of the economy by limiting its capability to invest in new jobs, and is a valid strategy only when the economy is overflowing with cash.

And, frankly, not always even then. As we have seen, the end of our personal mineral-fed boom has exposed the "running a surplus" games that Costello played for what they were - nothing but political grandstanding, and impressive only to the economically challenged. What they did gift us was a handful of fat-cat billionaires, who are now bleating pitifully that the government should look after them better. Phooey.

Every government since Keating has used our economy as a political football, instead of crafting responsible, forward-looking policies.

So, runner, can you name one responsible, forward-looking economic policy that has been put in place - or even hinted at - by our present government?

Can anyone remember when USA or Japan last had a budget surplus?

And David, You must know that that the major factor in the budget deficits of the Rudd, Gillard, and Abbott/hockey governments is the the handouts that Howard/Costello gave to themselves and their mates in 2006.

runner,
"Nice try at economics Aidan however can you name one surplus that the Federal Labour party has had in the last 20 years."
Of course I can't, because you've artificially restricted the timeframe. More than half of the last 20 years the Liberals have been in power. Before that Labor had run both surpluses and deficits, and ended with a few deficits. Soon after the Liberals' run ended, we had the GFC, after which it would've been irresponsible to run a surplus. So that only leaves the 2007-08 financial year. Perhaps Labor should've tried harder to run a surplus that year; Kevin Rudd shouldn't've been so quick to make big tax cuts. In fairness to him, though, John Howard had promised equally big tax cuts.

"I take it that you and Labour believe its always good to promise a surplus but never deliver it no matter how good/bad the economy is."
Then you're an imbecile! Unlike you I NEVER EVER outsource my thinking to a political party. Never have, never will. Just because I tend to agree with Labor more than the Libs, Nats, Greens, Puppies or Bobcats doesn't mean I always agree with Labor or approve of what they do.

FWIW I think it's NEVER good to promise a surplus, as changing economic conditions may make it irresponsible to try to deliver one. For this reason I don't regard Wayne Swan as a good treasurer. But Joe Hockey is far worse, largely because he's trying harder to deliver a surplus despite the damage it's causing. And he'll still fail!

Great opinion piece David. I would go further and say great factual recapitulation of a disastrous Federal Government that rooned the nation. It will take decades to undo and recover from Labor's financial incompetence. Yet if one believes the polls, there is a chance Labor could be re-elected. Maybe Australia deserves what it gets!