There’s a line at the end of the great western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, where a newspaper editor has just learned that the story everyone believed of the shooting of the bandit, Liberty Valance, was in fact a lie. He turns to his reporter and says, “When the Legend becomes fact, print the legend”. In Australian political reporting, the line has become, when the narrative is contradicted by fact, print the narrative.

You see the narrative according to the media is that the stimulus spending under the Building the Education Revolution has been full of rorting, and lacking in value for money. Today an Auditor General’s report (all 201 pages of it) into the BER (known in the report as BERP21) came out and found that err, actually the stimulus spend on schools was run quite well.

Whoops.

Does the media read the report and report the findings in the full context of the report? Hell no, instead it scours the report looking for any sign of negativity that they can then blow up out of context (and often contrary to the meaning given in the report), and then go with brain dead headlines like:

Audit slams Rudd's primary school building program

I’ll give my view of the ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) report in a bit, but first let’s hear from two people who seem to be able to understand the report (most likely because in their other lives they read a lot of them). Both are from Crikey. First up Bernard Keane (it was in today’s email – he is a must read if you want decent analysis – he may not get scoops, but he can cut through the bull on a report better than just about anyone this side of Laura Tingle):

The extended and systematic campaign run by the right-wing media to smear the education component of the Government's stimulus package came a cropper this morning -- badly. The ANAO released its report on the primary schools component of the program and found... a successful and well-implemented program.

This is the program that The Australian has been attacking for twelve months as a scandalous waste of money. The conclusions of the ANAO's performance review -- when the auditors look at a program from top to bottom to see whether it has done what it was intended to do -- fundamentally discredit a campaign that has formed a key part of News Ltd's war on the Government.

The other is Possum, whose article on the report is an absolute must read (in fact if you haven’t read it yet, stop reading this and click on the link!)

The opposition of course doesn't bother reading the report anymore than does 95% of the media, and so you had dopey comments from Tony Abbott saying a judicial inquiry needed to be held – I wonder if any in the press gallery thought to ask him why given the ANAO report makes absolutely no mention of anything suspicious or illegal or even improper occurring. Then there is Chris Pyne (ah bless him), saying this:

“Julia Gillard used to claim that this had created tens of thousands of jobs,” he said. “The Auditor-General specifically finds today that there is no data that would provide any basis for that claim.”

The only problem with that is Pyne is relying on a sentence in the summary which notes that DEEWR’s (the Department) data didn’t really stand up to full economic scrutiny, mostly because it wasn't meant to, as the report states:

The responsibility for monitoring and reporting performance under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is shared at the Commonwealth level by the Treasury, the Coordinator‐General and DEEWR. The Treasury has responsibility for modelling and reporting on the economic effect of the plan, as well as other stimulus measures.

Yes, it was Treasury’s job to do the modelling and reporting on the economic effects. And guess what, they have been reporting on it – most recently at the February Estimates Hearings. They’ll do it again at the end of this month’s Budget Estimates hearings. 

But that doesn't mean the ANAO didn’t look to see if it had provided any stimulus. In fact in the actual report (ie not just the summary) there is this nice little section:

Stimulus effects—progress to date

In it we find this:

7.16 A key leading indicator measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that of the value of building approvals, shows that education sector spending (almost wholly attributable to the BER program) has contributed to a reversal in the sharp decline in non‐residential construction activity which commenced in July 2008.

7.17 The effect of BER P21 is also evident in Construction Forecasting Council data, which shows that the program is likely to partly offset the sharp decline in non‐residential building activity which commenced in 2008–09, and is expected to continue until 2011–12 (see Figure 7.6)

Have a look at this graph. I don’t think you need a degree in Economics to see that building activity in every sector except the education sector went massively downhill on the back of the Global Financial Crisis.

Maybe the jobs in the education sector weren’t real, maybe all that activity was just being done by guys working smarter and harder. And maybe Chris Pyne is a dolt who cant read a graph. I’m just not sure….

Then we come to the issue of value for money. The Australian especially has been full of stories of some schools complaining that they haven’t got value for money – that there wasn’t enough consultation and therefore they ended up with buildings they didn’t want or need.

The ANAO report pretty much gave the Government a tick on this – but that didn’t fit the narrative, so instead we have The Australian reporting:

BER audit finds problem but 'value for money' of individual projects outside scope

Hmm let’s look more closely at that. Firstly the Report stated:

The responsibility for achieving value‐for‐money for building works under BER P21 is, however, the responsibility of the Education Authorities having regard to the program guidelines.

So firstly it’s up to the state education authorities to get value for money, not the Federal Government, because it was the state education authorities who were in the end deciding what to build and where (the Fed Govt was proving the money). And yes the Report does state:

an examination of particular BER P21 projects was outside the scope of the audit,

So yes The Australian is technically correct, except that was only part of the sentence. Let’s see all of it:

7.20 While an examination of particular BER P21 projects was outside the scope of the audit, there are some broad program features that have influenced stakeholder views regarding the achievement of value‐for‐money that were considered by the audit. An important feature has been the speed with which the program had to be delivered. Drawing on the results of its survey of primary school principals, the ANAO considered the effects of:
• constrained consultation periods
• decision‐making processes; and
• the use of template designs.

So while it was outside the scope, the ANAO still did look into the value for money question. And how did it do this? It asked the principals (those very same whom The Australian likes to cite are so annoyed with the projects)

It found that on the consultation aspect, the principals did wish there was more time to do it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not surprising – there was a Global Financial Crisis going on, so things were rushed, and people always would prefer more time to discuss major projects if they could. But then the ANAO asked if this time still allowed for a consensus with the school community to be reached on what to build:

Seventy three percent said it did and only just over 10% disagreed with the statement that there was enough time.

On the issue of decision making process and value for money, it was found that principals were more likely to believe their project would be value for money when the school itself commissioned the design of the build, rather than the education authority (not surprising really).

But on this point the ANAO came out with a startling point that should send a shiver up the spine of those in the media who have been basing their articles on the views of members of school councils or P&C groups:

7.28 In many cases, concerns from principals and community members about value‐for‐money relate to a misunderstanding of the building standards Education Authorities are expected to adhere to in building education infrastructure. This was pointed out, for example, by the NSW Department of Education in its submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee Inquiry into BER P21:

It should be noted that local quotes are often found to be competitive with those obtained through the Managing Contractors’ tender processes. However, there have been instances where local quotes have been presented to the BER Program Office which at first glance appear far less costly than their estimates, but which on further examination did not represent value for money in terms of quality of the product required to meet the Schools’ Facilities Standards.[220]

The foot note 220 (as Possum also relates) is pretty cutting:

NSW Government Submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee Inquiry into the ‘Primary Schools for the Twenty First Century’, p. 9. The department also noted: At Epping North Public School for example, a parent and builder on the [parents’ and citizens’ committee] indicated he could complete the building works cheaper than the managing contractor’s estimated price for a hall, [covered outdoor learning area] and canteen. The BER [integrated program office] arranged for the managing contractor to include this builder in the tender process. His quote was the most expensive option at well over $3 million for the project—or 50 per cent higher than his original claim.

Whoops.

The ANAO concluded:

7.29 The ANAO observed on the basis of consultations with 14 Education Authorities, that achievement of value‐for‐money, through procurement and contract management activity, is a major area of focus of program managers.

The ANAO also then asked the principals what it thought of the projects:

7.33 The ANAO’s survey results reflect strong support for the program, and confidence in its outcomes. Over 95 per cent of principals were confident the BER program would provide their school with an improvement of ongoing value to their school and school community, while over 80 per cent of principals were confident the program would achieve its education and community benefit outcome (see Figure 7.11).

Yes, 95% were confident that the money spent on buildings in their school would provide an improvement to the school and would be of ongoing value to the school and the school community.

Just ask yourself when you ever heard of 95% of any group of people approving something the Government had done?

Here’s the final point made in the whole report:

7.36 Overall, there are some positive early indicators that the program is making progress toward achieving its intended outcomes, despite the slower than expected implementation of the program. Lead economic indicators, including construction approvals, indicate that the introduction of BER P21 has contributed to a reversal in the decline in non‐residential construction activity that resulted from the global financial crisis. Education industry stakeholders, including peak bodies, Education Authorities and a substantial majority of school principals have also been positive about the improvement in primary school facilities that will result from the program.

And yet Abbott, and many of the media thinks this is a fail.

The Opposition I can understand, but why is the media reporting it like this? Perhaps the answer can be found in something Shaun Carney, of The Age, wrote, back in March about Rudd which caught the eye of a few bloggers, but went without comment elsewhere. He wrote:

Rudd is a far-from-engaging speaker compared with Abbott. He lives off his notes and is not much liked by reporters.

Just imagine the outrage from Andrew Bolt type had he written that line about Abbott. But by contrast this is what he wrote of Abbott:

Abbott is a political professional, is liked by a lot of reporters because of his knockabout style, and he can throw together a speech while on his feet.

Well I have to say to those in the Canberra Press Gallery, it’s time you woke up and realised Abbott is playing you for chumps. In a speech last night on asylum seekers Abbott said:

''If global conditions worsened, millions might be at least tempted to swap their current existence for the opportunities of a new life in Australia if they thought the perils of the boat trip would win them permanent residency.''

Yes, millions. Had Rudd said this in 2007, he would have been bashed from pillar to post by the media, and there would be serious doubts as to his credibility. Such a dumb statement is almost par for the course for Barnaby Joyce, but for a prospective Prime Minister?

It’s time for the press gallery to get serious about Abbott, and throw off the “oh that’s Tony” attitude.

But then perhaps another reason for this lax attitude to Abbott that can be found in the tweet by SBS reporter Karen Middleton after hearing of the 49-51 Newspoll:

Tomorrow's Newspoll 51-49 to the coalition. Lordy. It's a contest, then. Journalists love a contest.

Since he became leader of the ALP, Kevin Rudd has often talked about receiving a “whack in the polls”; today the whack finally arrived and it was a big one. In two party preferred terms the ALP went from leading 54-46, to being behind 49-51. This drop of 5% was courtesy of an 8% drop in the ALP primary vote going from 43% to 35%! These figures are, to say the least, amazing. For ALP supporters they would be troubling – has the sky fallen in?? Is the dream over??

Well no.

This fall was not entirely unexpected. The trend of polls in the last 2 weeks (if you can have a trend in two weeks) has been against the ALP. The reasons are obvious: they dumped the huge election commitment to build 260 childcare centres, the same day they cancelled the home insulation scheme, then they dumped the ETS till 2013, and then they also raised the price of smokes by 25%.

In one fortnight, the ALP broke wind in the faces of the electorate. And get this, they didn’t like it! The shock!

The big movement in the polls was really Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings. His Satisfaction rating fell a jaw dropping 11% from 50% to 39%, and his Dissatisfaction rating went up 9% from 41% to 50%. This is a huge shift, and demonstrates that the voters were blaming Rudd completely for the decisions of the last fortnight.

But here’s the thing, it’s not that bad a poll for the ALP. Why not? Because while Rudd’s Satisfaction fell, so too did Abbott’s – ok only 1% (which is statistically nothing), but his Dissatisfaction rating also increased – by 3% to 43%. In other words, the voters might be having a massive lover’s tiff with Rudd, but they aren’t about to go off and have an affair with Abbott.

This is also reflected in the 2 Party Preferred vote. The ALP’s primary vote dropped 8% (as Possum at Crikey notes, only the fourth time since 1990 that there has been such a big drop), and yet only 3% went to the LNP (2%, would you believe, to the National Party). Where did the rest go? To the Greens? Err nope – they didn’t change at all. Five percent went to “others”.

Now normally “others” means a mixture of Family First, One Nation rejects, Democrats hangers on and assorted ‘dunnos’. As a result, going by the 2007 election, Newspoll allocates the preferences from the ‘others’ group to the ALP and the LNP on a near 50-50 split (perhaps even a bit towards the LNP – say 55-45) Now the “others” normally accounts for 5-6%, but in this poll it accounts for 12%. Obviously this is not going to happen at the next election.

So who were these 5%? Well I think you can make a pretty strong case that they are ALP voters who were pissed off at Rudd but who sure as hell didn’t want to vote for Abbott, and so instead did a protest vote and said “others”.

The thing is Newspoll is counting them as though they are the normal 5-6% of ‘Others’ voters, when it is pretty obvious they are not. This allows us to have another look at the two party preferred figure, and do some messing around with the numbers (don’t panic, I have a degree in Economics, so I am legally allowed to do whatever I like with statistics to make them mean what I want them to mean).

So we have an ALP primary of 35%. The Greens are on 10%. Lets give 8 of those 10 to the ALP on preferences. That gets us to 43%.

Now the last Newspoll had 7 others. Lets give half to the ALP – that puts it up to 46.5%.

Then we have the added 5% who obviously would end up with the ALP (because let’s be honest if they wanted to vote for the Liberal Party they would have gone to the Libs like the other 3% did). That brings the ALP’s 2 Party Preferred up to 51.5%. Hey let’s be generous and round it down, and we’re left with an ALP 51- LNP 49 result.

See it’s easy!

But I’m not going to say this poll isn’t significant. It is, if only because it puts the LNP in front for the first time. But such a big drop is a good sign of a poll that has perhaps overcooked things a bit. I have no doubt the ALP (and Kevin Rudd) has taken a hit, but to the point where Abbott and the LNP are in front? I don’t think so. And from the commentary of Dennis Shanahan, even he doesn’t think so.

But that doesn’t mean the ALP shouldn’t be worried. Its strategy obviously was to throw out the garbage now and hope the stench cleared by the election. Well it certainly has stunk up the joint now, the test will be to see how the polls react over the next few weeks – especially after the budget. The obvious point I think is the electorate want Rudd to bloody well lead. And to lead now!

The big concern for the Liberal Party will be how few voters from the ALP came over to their side. The big problem for Abbott is that while is it partly true that oppositions don’t win elections, Government’s lose them; the reality is people still want the opposition to try and win them – ie they want to see some decent policies. Thus far Abbott’s policies haven’t exactly had people dancing in the streets.

The other interesting thing about this poll will be to see whether or not this starts the media actually treating Abbott as an alternative PM. Thus far they have been treating him like an opposition leader in the 2nd year of a Govt – ie all he needs to do is oppose, polices aren't important. By this time in 2007 Rudd was being put under a bloody big microscope by the media, and any gaffes or policy stumbles were seized upon. It will be nice to see the media give Abbott some policy microscope work as well…

***

Today the RBA increased the cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.5%. The ten year average rate is around 5.3%, and Glen Stevens in his statement seems to indicate that the rates are now at a pretty neutral setting:

The Board expects that, as a result of today’s decision, rates for most borrowers will be around average levels. This represents a significant adjustment from the very expansionary settings reached a year ago.

The Board will continue to assess prospects for demand and inflation, and set monetary policy as needed to achieve an average inflation rate of 2–3 per cent over time.

What this really means is that the pressure is now squarely on the Government to ease any inflationary pressures. And it starts with next week's Budget. During 2007 the ALP quite rightly talked about the warning the RBA gave the Howard Government about inflation. It’s now the ALP turn to be the ones who will be getting the warnings. This statement by Stevens essentially says, they’re back to normal. They’ll raise interest rate to keep inflation steady and low, but they’re not worried about employment and recession – their work on that score is essentially over.

So we’re back to inflation genie wanting to come out (it obviously isn’t yet), but Swan needs to keep it in mind – because like it or not, he’ll wear the increases from now on. (Isn’t Government fun?)

***

Don’t you just love the mining industry? And I say that as a shareholder of BHP. Since the Government announced the Super Profits Tax on mining, the mining companies have come out saying the Government has killed the mining industry in this country. My initial thought is why worry – after all surely the end of Work Choices killed it – because, as Bernard Keane pointed out in today’s Crikey email, back in 2006-07 the industry and much of the right wing media predicted the end of Work Choices would be the death of the industry. Strangely it seems to have survived that event – in fact apparently it’s booming again!

Today the Chairman of Cape Lambert Resources, Tony Sage, went on ABC Radio and said:

I've made the decision now: I'm ceasing all drilling work in Western Australia that we were planning to do later this year in one of my mines up in the Pilbara. We don't know and understand exactly how it's going to work. While there's uncertainly, I think you'll see many exploration and mining companies cease projects until there is certainty.

You see, they’ve decided not to do something that apparently they were planning to do later this year. I tried to find some announcement that they were going to do this exploratory drilling later this year, but I couldn’t find any. I guess they were keeping it secret and were going to spring it on us later – you know as a surprise party to celebrate 2 years of the end of WorkChoices not killing the mining industry. So I suppose we have to take Sage at his word. After all it’s not like he has anything to gain from getting the Government to back down on introducing the tax has he?

I had a quick Google search on the Cape Lambert South project. If found no mention of exploration in 2010, though I did find plenty referring to proposed exploration in 2008 after it got an exploration licence. 

I also found lots of mention of the company’s mines in Sierra Leone – including an intriguing one about welcoming an upgrade of rail and port infrastructure at Marampa in Sierra Leone, West Africa, where the company has an iron ore project.

Here’s the thing about the mining companies – they love to compare Australia to places in the third world where they also do business (and the Liberal Party climb on board this wagon as well) but they never like to talk about the infrastructure, skilled workforce and stable Government that we have here – apparently such thing are free benefits. And yeah, maybe there is lots of stuff to mine in Sierra Leone, but if keeping the miners here means we get to enjoy the economic wealth the same way that country does and reap the benefits with a per-capita GDP of $759, that has them ranked 174th out of 181 countries, I say they can get stuffed.

Tax ‘em.

So the Liberal Party has taken the lead for the first time since 2006 in the Newspoll.

This is a big shift – given that the last Newspoll had the ALP in front 54-46. Such a fall is almost cause to make one think it is a bit of an outlier, but to be honest, given the week the ALP had in dumping the ETS, the fall is not totally surprising (though I am surprised they fell so far).

The fall is based mainly on a fall in Kevin Rudd’s popularity. I’ll give this a closer look when all the figures come out in The Oz tomorrow, but the Preferred PM score is Rudd 50% (down 6%) Abbott 32%.

Back in mid 2008 I wrote that so long as Rudd stays above 50% on Preferred PM and the opposition leader can’t get above 35% the election will be a rout. I still agree, but Abbott is getting very close to that margin.

Given the Budget comes out next week, had the ALP kept the lead on this poll, it would have disappeared. But this is a big change, and will cause a big scare to the ALP. They are still the favourite to win (and I still can’t see them losing – this is just one poll), but it certainly shows that the public are not buying the argument that the ALP was justified in dumping the ETS. Also the dumping of the 260 childcare centres and the scrapping of the insulation scheme all in one week meant (as Possum wrote) if the Libs were ever going to be in front it was to be this week.

The political landscape has suddenly got very interesting – even if it doesn’t hold up. This poll will be interesting if only to see how the ALP reacts.

It also shows that despite complete lunacy in terms of policies from Abbott – eg the no dole for Under 30s – the people are mostly watching and judging the Government.

During an actual election the heat goes equally on both parties, but for now it is up to the Government to prove its worth, and this poll shows that in the last two weeks at least, the voters got a bit annoyed with them.

The week’s Flick of the Week takes us with Kevin Costner from the baseball feel-good fable, Field of Dreams to this role of Crash Davis in the baseball reality of Bull Durham.

It’s hard for those too young now to remember the early 1990s to just realise how big and popular was Costner. He seemed to be headed straight to the Hollywood stars Hall of Fame.

Bull Durham was made in that brief period where Kevin Costner was perhaps the most likeable actor on earth. The Untouchables, No Way Out, Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, JFK, The Bodyguard, A Perfect World was an incredible run of roles and films – in fact that run of good films is almost Tom Hanksesque (and in many ways, Hanks took over the role of most likeable actor on earth from Costner). Sure some are not classic art, but they were all popular, and a number have lasted extremely well – and A Perfect World is seriously underrated. Then came the over long and mundane Wyatt Earp, then the overlong and mundane Waterworld, then the overlong and mundane The Postman, add in a divorce in 1994, and the golden period for Costner was over. 

As it is, that run of films would probably get him voted into the Hall of Fame (especially when you add in his fine work in Tin Cup, For the Love of the Game – another baseball flick – and I can even cope with his Boston accent in Thirteen Days – probably because I’ve never been to Boston). And while it’s been over a decade since he was in anything close to a box office hit, you can;t deny that Bull Durham is a film that has held up amazingly well over 20 years.

The film involves Costner as Crash Davis an aging catcher in the minor leagues, who brought onto a minor league baseball team (the real life Durham Bulls) to mentor a young cocky pitcher – Ebby Calvin LaLoosh (Tim Robbins). The line on LaLoosh is that he has “a million dollar arm and a ten cent head”. Thrown into the mix is Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) a baseball lover, and lover of baseball players. Each season she picks one player to sleep with, and that player invariably has a great year. She narrows her choice down to Crash and LaLoosh, and thus begins a great tale of love, life and baseball.

Costner is pitch perfect as the aging warrior – a guy who has the brains but not the talent. He is the sporting Salieri. He knows what greatness is, and he knows he doesn’t have it. His record as the player to hit the most home runs in the minor league (a record that doesn’t really exist as there are so many levels that constitute “minor league”) is a wonderful symbol of a player who is good enough but not great enough.

The film is definitely a romantic comedy – and Sarandon and Costner are a great match – but it is also one of the most brilliant examinations of what it means to fall short of your dreams. The dialogue by writer-director Ron Shelton is witty and sexy, adult and intelligent – featuring the classic monologue by Crash on what he believes in.

It’s not perfect. Tim Robbins has the cocky demeanour down pat, but they guy does not look like he can pitch. It’s a serious flaw, but he makes up for it with his dumb swagger. His “Nuke” LaLoosh is every wanker sporting guy you’ve ever known who couldn’t count to six, but is somehow earning six figures because he can play sport. At the start you want him to fail, and yet you know he won’t as Annie says “the world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness”. That said by the end of the film he has matured somewhat, you don’t mind him succeeding because you feel that Crash and Annie have contributed to his success. But you also know he will soon forget them.

Best of all the film makes the game seem fun – Crash telling the batters what Nuke is going to pitch, or getting Nuke to hit the mascot; and the great work done by Trey Wilson and Robert Wuhl as the managers Skip and Larry produce some great interplay that makes you wish you were a part of this team  or at least someone in the stands supporting them.

Soon after, the pretty derivative Major League came out. That film is an absolute crock – give it a wide berth and instead stay with this (bizarrely you’ll find it in the bargain bin at JB HiFi for $6.98) the most fun and one of the baseball/sports films of all time.

Favourite quote:

Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: How come you don't like me?
Crash Davis: Because you don't respect yourself, which is your problem. But you don't respect the game, and that's my problem. You got a gift.
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: I got a what?
Crash Davis: You got a gift. When you were a baby, the Gods reached down and turned your right arm into a thunderbolt. You got a Hall-of-Fame arm, but you're pissing it away.
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: I ain't pissing nothing away. I got a Porsche already; a 911 with a quadraphonic Blaupunkt.
Crash Davis: Christ, you don't need a quadraphonic Blaupunkt! What you need is a curveball! In the show, everyone can hit heat.
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Well, how would you know? YOU been in the majors?
Crash Davis: Yeah, I've been in the majors. Yeah, I was in the show. I was in the show for 21 days once - the 21 greatest days of my life. You know, you never handle your luggage in the show, somebody else carries your bags. It was great. You hit white balls for batting practice, the ballparks are like cathedrals, the hotels all have room service, and the women all have long legs and brains.

A quick post on how hard things are when you’re in opposition, you’re the Liberal Party and you’re trying to make a logical point.

Firstly we have Malcolm Turnbull in his press conference announcing his return (not that he went anywhere) to politics taunting Rudd for being too gutless to hold a Double Dissolution on the ETS.

The problem is, if Rudd were to hold a Double Dissolution on the ETS, given that Turnbull actually voted for the ETS, he would logically have to support the Government on the main issue of the election, which would mean his position wouldn’t be tenable. So Turnbull wants Rudd to do something that would force Turnbull to attack the Liberal Party and actually mean he couldn't really campaign for his own party at the election. His lack of logic on this issue isn’t all that surprising, given that in dumping the ETS, Rudd is doing what Abbott wanted to happen to the ETS, but Abbott is criticising Rudd for doing it.

Rudd deftly turned the Turnbull “return” quite nicely into an effective attack stating:

"I think it's terrific that Malcolm's going to be back in the thick of it, because if and when he returns to the Liberal leadership, there's a prospect then of returning to some bipartisan consensus on key elements of emissions trading”

Actually Turnbull’s “return” gives Rudd a very easy response whenever the Libs try to attack him on the ETS backdown in Question Time. He can merely say, well if you want an ETS to be introduced, just honour the Turnbull deal – in fact bring him back to the leadership (at this point Rudd will call out to the “member for Wentworth”) and we’ll pass the Bill. Everyone knows Turnbull isn't back just to be a good loyal local member, so whenever the Libs ask about the ETS he’ll make it into a leadership issue. 

The next bit of “Liberal logic” came today when we had the Liberal Party’s response to the Henry Tax Review. The heading is:

Another Kevin Rudd Tax Grab

Then they proceeded to label Rudd as gutless. Why?

Kevin Rudd’s response to the Henry Review is more spin than substance. He’s accepted just two and a half of 138 recommendations so, yet again, there’s more talk than action. Typically, the action involved is a tax grab, not tax reform. He’s put higher taxes on easy targets but put off the hard decisions on cutting out-of-control government spending.

So they’re attacking Rudd for not implementing all (or at least a majority) of the recommendations. But then what do they do? They demand that Rudd categorically rule out introducing a number of the recommendations! For eg:

Will Kevin Rudd rule out a tax on Australians driving to work? (Recommendations 61-68)
Will Kevin Rudd rule out introducing new taxes on business activity? (R26)
Will Kevin Rudd rule out scrapping entirely the private health insurance rebate? (R7(b))
Will Kevin Rudd rule out means testing the childcare rebate? (R100)

So according to Abbott, Rudd is gutless for not implementing enough recommendations, but then he states that he wants Rudd not to implement the recommendations.

Sigh.

In effect Abbott is complaining that Rudd is not implementing recommendations that Abbott opposes, because Abbott wants to be able to oppose Rudd for implementing the recommendations.

I hope you enjoy this, because the budget is next week, and I fear the depths of illogic from Tony Abbott and his merry band of Liberal Party MPs are only just beginning to be plumbed.

Prior to the start of the year, the Crows and Hawthorn were seen by many judges to be the teams to watch – the Hawks had had an injury plagued 2009, and looked to be ready to get back into the big time; the Crows were good in 2009, and with their many young players, were thought to be ready to go up a level and be firmly in the top 4.  The Swans and Fremantle however were thought to be in the midst of rebuilding – no thought of finals this year.

After 6 rounds the Hawks and Crows have one win between them; the Swans and Fremantle meanwhile both are on 5 wins and one loss.

Potential means nothing; expectations guarantee nothing. Last year is irrelevant.

AFL football lives in the present; you can’t afford to think of winning a flag in two year’s time, you have to try and win it this year. In 2008 many thought the Hawks were a good side, that would be challenging for the flag in 09 or 2010. Instead they won it in 2008, and since then have been pretty damn average. You have to win it when you can, because despite all the planning and logic, your team can suddenly be the Crows and Hawks in 2010. At least Hawks’ supporters can still remember 2008; for the Crows’ 1998 is fast becoming ancient history.

Not much chance this week at the top or bottom; but plenty of movement in the middle:

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1↔	St Kilda	5-1	They pulled this one out of nowhere. But geez, they are an ugly team to watch play.
	2	2↔	Collingwood	5-1	Collingwood dealt with Carlton with ease. They should account for North before the big trip west to play Freo.
	3	3↔	Fremantle	5-1	Freo were looking in trouble mid-way through the 2nd quarter. Then they kicked the next 11 goals. Tough game this week at the Gabba, but if they miss the finals from here they will be shattered.
	4	5↑	Sydney	5-1	You’ve got to hand it to Paul Roos – he just knows how to coach a side to win. Big game this week against the Cats in Geelong.
	5	7↑	Geelong	4-2	Well it was Richmond. Sydney this week will be a more honest test.
	6	4↓	Brisbane	4-2	The Lions suffered at the hands of a perfect “eff-you” performance by Bradshaw. They need to beat Freo at the Gabba this week to get back on track.
	7	10↑	Port Adelaide	4-2	They slaughtered the Crows in the last quarter, and will be full of confidence when they face Essendon this week.
	8	6↓	Carlton	3-3	The Blues weren’t up to the task of beating the Pies. Now they face the bigger test of Saint Kilda.
	9	8↓	Bulldogs	3-3	That one will hurt, as it shows for all to see that they are a kick or two short of the best teams.
	10	11↑	North Melbourne	3-3	A good win that will give them a small boost as they get ready for the Pies this week.
	11	13↓	Essendon	2-4	The Bombers rubbed the Hawks noses in it (held them scoreless in the last quarter). Not a finals side, but they’ll annoy a lot of footy tippers.
	12	9↓	Melbourne	3-3	A reality check against a team they should have beaten. How they fare against the Bulldogs this week will reveal whether or not they’re already peaked.
	13	12↓	Hawthorn	1-5	Ok, the Hawks are officially in trouble. After 6 weeks they have one more win that the Crows and Tigers. If they lose at Subiaco this week, I’m saying they won’t play finals.
	14	14↔	West Coast	1-5	To be honest, the Eagles aren’t that good. They have some good young players, but they’re a few years off of being a challenger.
	15	15↔	Adelaide	0-6	Yeah they were better, but when it counted they were still pathetic. Now they get to play Richmond for the Embarrassment Cup. I wouldn’t put money on them.
	16	16↔	Richmond	0-6	At quarter time betfair were offering $50 on a Tigers win. Their one chance for a win this year might be this week.

Today at 2:30pm all the journalists from the Canberra Press Gallery were released from the four hour lock up they had endured at Parliament House to go through the Henry Tax Review. If you want to know what’s in it, you can click on any number of the stories below.

What I’m interested in is that these journalists have had four hours to go through a 1000 odd pages (or at least the executive summary if they are lazy!) and then write a story to be filed as soon as possible. Given that journalists try to capture the story in the first paragraph (the old 5 W’s rule – the who, the what, the where, the when, and the why), I’m going to have a look at the initial reactions by various journalists. Of course the journalists don’t write the headings for the stories, but they are also interesting for seeing how the media are looking at viewing the story – each of the headings will link to the full story that will give the fuller coverage).

The story will no doubt change throughout the day and into tomorrow. No doubt given the 138 recommendations, and the small number that have been completely adopted by the Government, expect a few “they squibbed it” articles. But bear in mind, the Henry Tax Review was meant to be a long term view. How long term? Well remember that in 1975 the Asprey Review of the taxation system recommended a consumption tax – that took over 20 years to be introduced.

Firstly, here’s the Government's media release:

Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: A Tax Plan for Our Future

The long term tax plan we announce today will strengthen the economy and make the tax system fairer and simpler for Australian working families and businesses.

Pretty meaningless.

At this time the Libs don’t have a media release on the website, but Laurie Oakes reported that Abbott and Hockey were waiting for journalists outside the lock up and both said it’s “One great big tax”, which just shows they are the most indolent opposition in recent memory.

First up – Emma Rodger from ABC online:

Mining boom to pay for super revolution

By online political correspondent Emma Rodgers

Millions of Australians are set to reap higher retirement savings as the Federal Government makes major changes to the country's superannuation system in response to the much-anticipated Henry tax review.

Pretty positive report for the Government. Big focus on the two key aspect of the review – the 40% mining tax and the increase to 12% of the superannuation guarantee (something not recommended by the Henry Review).

Now James Massola from The Canberra Times:

Super contributions to rise to 12pc

BY JAMES MASSOLA

The resources sector will be slugged with a 40 per cent “resources super profit tax”, super contributions will rise to 12 per cent and company taxes will fall under changes to the tax system adopted by the Federal Government in the wake of the Henry tax review.

Another focus on the 40 percent miners and the 12 percent super. Use of “slugged” is a bit tabloidy, but he gets the big ticket information out there quickly.

Now George Megalogenis from The Australian:

Tax on miners to pay for super boost, company tax rate cut

• George Megalogenis

A NEW 40 per cent tax on windfall mining profits will pay for a 3 per cent boost to the superannuation guarantee for workers and a 2c in the dollar reduction in the company tax rate, under the Rudd government's politically cautious response to the Henry review of the taxation system released today.

A good summation – throws in a bit of a comment “politically cautious” that doesn’t go over the top; certainly has me wanting to read more.

Now Tim Lester for the Fairfax, SMH and The Age:

Big profits from mining boom to pay for boost in retirement savings

TIM LESTER NATIONAL BUREAU CHIEF

Australians will receive billions of dollars in extra retirement savings through an overhaul of superannuation.

Yeah ok. But the heading just about gives more detail that the opening “paragraph”.

David Koch for some reason has been given a run on news.com.au:

Government wimps out on true tax reform - David Koch

• By David Koch

How wimpy was that.

Thanks for that David. Don’t give up your day job.

Here was the article on the Sky News webpage:

Super guarantee to increase to 12%

The federal government has promised average workers an extra $100,000 in retirement savings so long as its proposed resources tax gets up to pay for it.

A pretty pro-Government start to an article. Points out the political implications – the super 12% only gets through if the mining tax also gets through.

Now a few AAP articles (most likely written by Gabrielle Dunlevy)

Small business wins in Henry tax review

• From: AAP

SMALL business is a clear winner from the Government's response to the Henry review - but cuts to company tax and red tape aren't as deep as Treasury secretary Ken Henry recommends.

Resource Super Profits Tax 'to share mining wealth'

• By Gabrielle Dunlevy

ENSURING ordinary Australians get a share of the enormous wealth generated by the nation's resources is key to the first wave of changes from the Henry tax review.

Mining tax to pay for super boost, Henry Tax Review recommends

• From: AAP

KEVIN Rudd has launched a pre-election salvo that seeks to deliver Labor a second term by promising to redistribute the nation's wealth by taxing the profits of big mining and boosting the retirement savings of millions of Australians.

The Government would be happy with those stories and headlines. The final one focuses most on the politics of the tax review. It is the problem with long term tax reviews that they have to be implemented within the short-term world of Australian politics.

Now for Crikey and Bernard Keane’s response:

Henry Review: Few monsters to frighten voters

by Bernard Keane

Well this won’t do much to dispel the impression of a cautious, indeed risk-averse, government.

Keane’s mission is to focus on the politics, and he does it quickly. Essentially he views the Govt’s response to Henry as confirmation that Rudd is more Bob Carr than Bob Hawke (let alone Whitlam). Keane’s views as a cynical ex-public servant are better revealed in a tweet he wrote:

Henry Review: a comprehensive plan for a tax system that encourages growth and sustainability. No politician will ever touch most of it.

Alan Kohler – the ABC’s economic guru for Inside Business, but here writing for Crikey gives his verdict:

Kohler: This is politics, not reform

by Alan Kohler

The team of five headed by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has produced 138 recommendations that make up a compellingly comprehensive vision for Australia’s future tax and transfer system. It is a great document – probably the best tax review ever produced in this country.

Kohler is a pure economics-policy wonk. He would prefer to see all 138 recommendations implemented regardless of the political consequences. Similar is the view of Peter Martin:

Don't confuse the Swan's tax moves with Henry's Tax Review

They're pretty unrelated. The Henry Review is here. The government's response is at futuretax.gov.au
Aside from the Resources Rent Tax, renamed the Resource Super Profits Tax, there's little relation between the two. And don't hold out hope for much more.

Martin, like Kohler, would love the actual Henry Review – expect them both to keep calling for its recommendations to be implemented over the next decade.

And finally there is the Australian Financial Review (not sure who wrote it):

Resources hit in Henry review

Reforms to superannuation including a lift in the superannuation guarantee charge from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, infrastructure spending and a lower company tax rate would be funded by a new 40 per cent federal resource rent tax under sweeping reforms proposed by the federal government on Sunday in its response to the Henry tax review.

The Government would love to read phrases like “sweeping reforms”.

So there’s the quick view of “the Henry” from the media on the web. Obviously most people will get their info from the 6pm news reports, but it;s pretty obvious the big line is the mining tax and superannuation levy.

I look forward to reading some more in depth assessments of the Review itself.