Turnbull scraps Abbott’s rent-seeker council

Bravo:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will dismantle Tony Abbott’s 14-member business advisory council which was convened to provide corporate Australia’s opinion on government policy.

…”He has decided not to continue with a formal Business Advisory Council but will continue to engage with its members in an informal and individual way.”

I suggest PM Turnbull cease engagement, period.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

      • It helps that Turnbulls own home is nicer than the official PM’s residence.

        He’s not in it for the perks or the cash. He may be in it for the power and the ego, but not the money.

    • Why in particular?
      -Less able to be bought?
      -More susceptible to allow evidence and logic to influence policy?
      -Not blindly following the IPA script?
      -Thinking about policy that is not just about ‘what is best for big business’, but ‘what is in the best interests of Australia and Australians?

      • • Less able to be bought?
        • More susceptible to allow evidence and logic to influence policy?
        • Not blindly following the IPA script?
        • Thinking about policy that is not just about ‘what is best for big business’, but ‘what is in the best interests of Australia and Australians?
        ✓ All of the above?

      • Should say “voters” instead of “Australia”.

        Mass immigration can be seen as good for AUS and smashing wages but is terrible for voters.

    • Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, I cannot understand the comparison, Kim dynasty is dictatorial Communist Country almost like a Royal Family. PM Turnbull is neither, Communist or Royal Family, perhaps more republican so maybe Presidential?

    • Surfless, meant purely in terms of the deep affection in which the nation holds Malcolm. Not suggesting a nascent Messiah Complex nor anything like that …

    • Why 3d? His big toe knows more about business than Abbott ever did or will, which is why he doesn’t need these ‘advisors’. Don’t you want a PM who understands business? Maybe you’d prefer one that doesn’t know much and can be easily puppeteered by a carefully selected panel of crony-capitalist oligarchs 😉

      • “Maybe you’d prefer one that doesn’t know much and can be easily puppeteered by a carefully selected panel of crony-capitalist oligarchs”

        i’m pretty sure there is no maybe about it…

      • Aurea Mediocritas – ooh I like it. far better than my entirely random handle stemming from a 15 year long attempt from maintain e-privacy via bogus emails. Almost pointless really. All my actual friends know who Harry is on facetube.

        I must come up with something wittier when I return from start-up purgatory.

    • I agree. The Mining industry only needed to spend $20 million on propaganda to convince voters that rich mining companies should pay no tax and that the prime minister should be sacked.

  1. I guess informal engagement has the benefit of not having any minutes or written record.
    Regardless reviewing all abbot era policies is a good thing.

  2. Somewhere in Australia another hole has just been punched into an already freshly plastered wall.

  3. Of course he needs to keep engaging him. Politicians should be as engaged as possible with all groups in society. It’s the only way representative democracy can work.

    It’s an issue if a certain group is provided an unfair advantage via institutionalising influence, as was the case, or via bribery… Err… ‘donations’.

  4. The Sydney Institute and Institute of Public Affairs are next for the chopping block, not unless they release who funds them.

    • Certainly hope not – don’t want lose my subscription! If those two go, nearly wall to wall Left think tanks, luckily we’ll still have CIS to turn to for sound advice.

      • Yes, where would we be without all that Tobacco Industry funded IPA ‘research’ telling us all how good smoking is for Australia?
        http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2895480.htm
        http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/31/the-ipa-research-funded-by-big-tobacco/

        And, by the same logic, providing impartial advice for the economy for the ‘good of Australians’, and good wholesome ‘science’ based advice on fossil fuel use. (I learnt a new word this week. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.)

      • Yes, The Institute of Public Affairs is very Christian in its dealings with less so fortunate Australians, probability why the IPA is having a 2015 Christmas Appeal, all tax deductible too. The IPA is very economical and smart about their web hosting too, cheaper to have it in the USA and running Open Source operating system Linux and web server Apache.

      • you are beyond parody bullshit artist…
        thinktanks…hhahahahahahah…. why do you need ’em….hahahahhahahaah..don’t answer that parrot…hahhahhaaha…pull your finger out you bludger and contribute your own efforts on policy

  5. Not bad… ‘informal engagement’ is really code for we don’t really need to formalise your rent seeking and lobbying, it’s pretty obvious…

    PMT backs a winner there.

    • Give it a rest. You need the whole picture – private plus public debt – and that goes back to the great con by Howard in passing private debt increases off as growth.

      In every economy in the world, private debt became public debt, after an economic shock… As you well know.

      • Private debt is not being discussed.

        The scenario you describe may or may not happen. Deal with the reality as it is at present.

        Nonetheless, this new blog looks like one worth watching.

      • Given that private debt converting to public debt happened in so many countries, any discussion of debt that does not include both is worthless.

        It’s as foolish as saying that reducing debt is good, even if assets are sold to achieve it, meaning there’s been no change in the net financial position. Good enough for the angry old man and travelling salesman demographic that is the readership of the Australian, but it’s not going to convince anyone with even passing financial knowledge.

        So, while the former PM might have not understood all that, I’m sure the new PM does.

      • actually private debt is being discussed bullshit artist and apropos of that discussion we are considering who was the group of economic vandals that so screwed up on policy settings as to leave us with a structural deficit and vote buying pork barrelling tax concessions that have royally fingered the national accounts.

      • Dudes. The blog is a review of the 2015 Budget. As it is. Private debt may or may not figure in future Budgets in some form. Stop speculating!

      • You mean “stop planning for an event that by its history in similar countries is quite likely” don’t you?

        It’s another critcism of the Abbott government that it was always engaged in extremely short term fights, rather than thinking ahead and looking at the big picture.

      • If you were planning for it, what would you do? Reduce spending immediately, thereby reducing current borrowing and subsequent increase in total debt? Something else? And with a totally fucked Senate full of halfwits, would any of these measures pass?

      • What I’d do is expect political leaders, especially the government with thousands of economists paid for with my tax money, to undertake basic scenario planning, have contingency plans in place for the range of possible scenarios, and an adult conversation about what needs to happen under each scenario.

        If, as the Abbott government did, people only got told half the truth, and no scenarios presented, then I’d expect the community, and representatives in the Senate, to be mightily directionless.

        The present Senate situation is a direct result of the inability of the previous government to articulate a logical scenario or plan for the future. No agreed future scenario, means no agreed plan to get there, means a directionless Senate.

      • 3d,

        Groooaaaan. The budget was well into structural debt in the latter years of Howard and you know it.

        Not that I’m suggesting that Krudd/Gillard/Krudd were worthy of government – we’ll bits of them were, something than cannot be said about Abbot.

        I realise former Prime F*ckwit gets dozens of letters of support from paid up IPA members,bBut I do wish one somebody with time on their hands, think one of those very stylish hipsters would start a Change.org/getup petition saying simply – “Tony, mate, please, please, please – Fuck Off and leave us alone.” – That would get several million signatures.

        Not that any weight of EVIDENCE would have any impact upon Tones, he’s not really an evidence kind of cat, is he.

    • Just doing the job they were elected to do.

      There’s nothing in that article, or in anything that the Senators have said, that isn’t worth the community discussing.

    • The Moron Show. Starring serial populist Xenophon with special cameo role by that clown, Dastyari. And supported by a cast of nobodies.

      Poor man my country.

      • You’re free to leave at any time.
        Can I suggest Nauru or West Papua.
        You seem very impressed by the decision making processes that made those countries what they are today.

      • Prefer a feral senate then a rubber stamp senate, makes both opposition and government work harder.
        Actually I like Senator Muir, he has learnt some hard and fast lessons from being in Canberra, but has held his ground when has come to legislation, financial planning laws for example. Not feral, but no bodies fool now. Gone thru a few staffers although.

      • aj I do always put the Laberal’s last but somehow one or the other keep getting in.
        Not really constructive, more disheartening.

      • bolstrood,

        There’s still at least two advantages in putting laberal last.

        The first is that electoral funding from taxpayers goes to the primary vote getter, not the eventual preference winner. Put laberal last and deprive them of a couple of dollars.

        The second is that it is sometimes very disheartening for some fringe party candidates, when their cause gets little apparent support. This may be despite them having quite worthy aims, but who votes for single issue parties, no matter how worthy? So, every extra vote for a minor party with a worthy platform gives them heart.

  6. “And with a totally fucked Senate full of halfwits, would any of these measures pass?”

    Of course the Senate’s behaviour had nothing to do with an arrogant Abbott government that was unwilling to listen or meaningfully compromise! The harsh reality is the Abbott government botched the politics all the way back in Opposition. They got exactly what they deserved. The Coalition should learn from its (and Labor’s) mistakes, maybe read some MB, and formulate some moderate polices that spread the pain.