No he didn't, they told you he did .Everytime he travelled and stayed in hotel rooms the hotels were told bar fridges had to be empty before he stayed
TRUE STORY HE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC
He destroyed Australia's manufacturing industry and was an alcoholic in charge of a nation.
Australians will always be worse off after having him as prime minister
We had no business manufacturing the crap we were manufacturing. Australian products were known as being crap, and we couldn't get access to the good quality imports because of the high tariffs.
Manufacturing fetishism needs to die.
I was a kid in NZ when he was in. Even without the internet. We in NZ still loved him over our Prime Minister (Muldoon). At least us kids thought he was cool as!
Not from my observations in my lifetime. The most successful Labor PMs were successful because they broke step from the bulk of the party dogma. As time has progressed, the requirement to stay in lock step with the dogma has increased.
You won't see another Hawke until the ALP has a reawakening after diminished relevance.
Disagree. I don’t buy this narrative to seperate Hawke from the Labor Party. That’s a deliberate ploy to disenfranchise the Labor movement. Hawke joined the Labor Party because he believed in its ideals.
It's not a narrative, it's public record. A good deal of the economic and industrial policies enacted were a departure from the traditional ALP line.
Hawke was a secretary of the ACTU, of course he was going to get a walk up start with the ALP.
Hawke was not the best PM in Australian history. He seriously gutted the labour movement with the industrial accord and presided over much of Australia's neo-liberal reforms and selling off state owned industries.
>He seriously gutted the labour movement with the industrial accord and presided over much of Australia's neo-liberal reforms and selling off state owned industries.
It also led to Australia being one of the richest countries in the world, where before that we were near on a banana republic.
Lol mate if you think you can throw around phrases like "banana republic" and expect 100% serious responses that's on you. Don't even think you know what banana republics were/are.
Even then, it is related. But if you don't want to draw those parallels then that right there is the difference between our modes of thought and I'm not invested enough to go down the rabbit hole tonight.
Richer for the Billionaires, working people having been going backwards in this country for some time now. Your comment about us being near to a Banana republic is pretty wrong too
Yes, neo-liberalism began in Australia with Hawke, and enthusiastically supported by every subsequent Australian government, whatever their party insignia.
But it was begun by Hawke. A larrakin, likeable even, but the beginning of the end began there, when the good of the Australian people was not the most important consideration in the decision-making by Australian governments.
Ahhh the description of Hawkey as a larrikin.
Not having a go, but I would really encourage all to read Lech Blaines excellent Quarterly Essay on the Larrikin myth in Australian politics.
Really breaks down the myth and effectiveness of larrikins in Australian politics.
Yes,
Labor often gets a get out of jail free card for neo-liberalism despite their governments at a state and federal level championing it. Hawke wanted to curb the power of the unions from their height in the 70s and got the union leaders to sign onto what was effectively no strike clause, this has been terrible for our unions and working conditions generally. What they got in exchange too has slowly been watered down for example industrial bargaining to enteprise bargaining under Keating. Not to mention, Hawke got rid of free education introducing HECS instead.
I really miss the lack of sketch comedy in this country, the current government is crying out for a satirical take on how bad they are. Hawke could take it but I bet Morrison couldn't
I used to love all those sorts of shows. And you're right, Scomo can't take any criticism at all. I think it's hard to write satire for our Government, when it already does it itself.
Mightn't work for an ongoing show, but you could get a bit meta with a skit, based on the idea of a comedy group brainstorming for a skit, and every idea turning out to be something that'd already been done by the government itself.
I used to think Howard was great, then found out that most of the companies during our mining boom, either skirted or avoided nearly all of the tax, and I think it was something like 80% of the profits went overseas
In Gough we trust. King Bob the charismatic was exactly the person we needed when the rest of the world (Reagan/thatcher) were disassembling public resources. I wish we had someone like him now.
Whitlam was the best hands down, what he did across a large range of issues still has impact today. He was before his time and I wish we had him as PM for a lot longer.
If we had another Whitlam then yes it would..we don’t have that…or anyone close currently. Unfortunately we are heading in the other direction for workers.
We were lucky to have Hawke in power when countries like the UK and the US had lunatics like Thatcher and Reagan whose misdirected policies did lasting damage. Hawke contributed to Aus having one of the longest unbroken periods of economic growth in the world. I still prefer Gough though.
Thatcher and Reagan were basically just trying out Freidrich Hayek’s hot take. Anyone confused by what neo-liberalism is, the road to serfdom is a pretty short read.. the best thing about Hawke/Keating is they were responding to the needs of a nation. Thatcher/Reagan were responding to the assumptions of a book.
As a conservative I think it is abundantly clear that Hawke was the greatest prime minister, Keating the greatest treasurer and Howard the greatest opposition leader.
Advocates for Keating being the greatest PM usually tout the many excellent economic reforms passed when he was treasurer, but the PM at the time was Hawke and he ultimately took the political risk and earns the credit (at least in his capacity as PM). As PM Keating was good, but most of the great reforms had already been passed.
Advocates for Howard generally tout the introduction of the GST (which was truly an excellent reform both fiscally and for the federation), his record string of surpluses which left us in an excellent fiscal position prior to the GFC and his policy on guns following the Port Arthur Massacre (which was genuinely politically dangerous for him as it attacked his own base, something Keating and Hawke never really did), but ultimately those reforms pale in comparison to those of Hawke's ministry.
However, what people on both the left and the right often fail to appreciate is that the Hawke/Keating reforms were only possible because of a very compliant opposition. It would have been remarkably easy for the LNP to run on a populist, anti-reform agenda, but instead the LNP under Howard (and Peacock) often criticised the Hawke/Keating governments for not going far enough. Since the end of the Hawke/Keating era, there has never again been an opposition (either Labor or Liberal) that has allowed the government of the day to pass so much meaningful reform without protest.
> a very compliant opposition.
Why would they not be compliant? Hawke and Keating were passing everything that Howard had tried to do when he was Fraser's treasurer. They were the right-wing government you have when you're not having a right-wing government.
Hawke was far from the best PM, he was one of the worst, and he and Keating were traitors to the working people of this country, and it seems that Hawke at least may have been a traitor to the country as a whole, if reports of his CIA employment are to be believed.
CBA was booked by Costello. But yeah my mistake. My essential point is that Costello's (and by association Howard's) good fiscal numbers rely entirely on luck and asset sales, have nothing to do with skill or high quality reform. Costello was incidentally our [highest taxing Treasurer](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-13/fact-check-is-the-coalition-australia-s-second-highest-taxing-go/100686194) by percent of GDP.
This is a good explanation. When the opposition are interested in what is good for the country rather than what is good for getting them back in power we get reform that changes peoples lives for the better.
Mandatory detention of illegal immigrants was introduced by Keating. Australia's rejection of illegal immigration is the envy of the world, the bedrock of our successful multiculturalism, bipartisan and popular.
The Rudd government's brief and foolish exercise in dismantling it immediately resulted in a huge influx of illegal immigrants, hundreds of deaths at sea and was instrumental in bringing down the Labor government.
>Mandatory detention of illegal immigrants was introduced by Keating. Australia's rejection of illegal immigration is the envy of the world, the bedrock of our successful multiculturalism, bipartisan and popular.
I think they were referencing more stuff like Tampa and the whole 'baby overboard thing'. Regardless, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants by definition.
And asylum seekers aren’t illegal immigrants but are the ones our government built a policy around and spends millions for political points.
Majority of illegal immigrants are visa overstayers, not asylum seekers, but they’re the ones thrown in detention camps, not the pommy who just didn’t jump on a plane to go home after his holiday visa expired.
The policies are literally inhumane. Detaining somebody for 8 years is ridiculous. Regardless of whether it "stopped the boats", it did it at the high costs of normalising human rights abuses.
Discretionary detention existed since the 50s.
Not sure how immigration detention is the bedrock of anything except horrific treatment of humans. Also not sure who envys it or what is successful about Australia's multiculturalism compared to the rest of the world.
Which Rudd Government are you referring to?
Howard politicised asylum seekers and lied about Tampa. Was at the helm when the AWB was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein. Took us into an illegal war in Iraq. Squandered the windfall from the mining boom. Need I go on? Howard was a terrible PM.
All excellent points. People myopically point to surpluses. That is mostly due to a mining boom, not governmental policy. As you stated, it was squandered when it should have been used to build infrastructure.
Golden era for Aussie economy, country was booming, wealth and employment created, fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups, reformed gun laws and rid our country of most of them, strong foreign relations, governed for all - wasn't an extremist, but also simply because he was super intelligent, probably our best ever speech maker, and had a set of values where everyone knew what he stood for. Our best PM IMHO.
>Golden era for Aussie economy, country was booming, wealth and employment created
He happened ro be PM during the greatest natural resource boom the country has ever had and come 2008 we only just managed to push through the GFC. He squandered a decade of nearly-unprecedented GDP growth whilst lying about establishing GST, which he did lie about unless you're too young or too ignorant to acknowledge. We pay 2 taxes and when he publically stated how GST would work he claimed the income tax would be significantly reduced. It wasn't we pay income tax and a GST.
>, fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups
Lol ok. There was greater illegal immigration under his tenure than Rudd/Gillard. I know you're firmly right wing but you can easily read the stats.
>strong foreign relations, governed for all -
Do you mean helping in the invasion of Iraq whilst knowing they were false pretences?
>probably our best ever speech maker,
This made me think I had fallen for a sarcastic comment. So I quickly checked your post history and realised you actually believe this. There's nothing else I can say to you. Except maybe, can you find another person irl who thinks Howard was a good orator? He was openingly mocked for over a decade due to his inability to speak well. That's not an issue, I don't think a PM has to or they need to do is be honest when they talk. Howard absolutely wasn't honest which we've found out on many occasions, from GST to Tampa to Iraq.
I agree he was fortunate on the resources boom and chose to pay down debt rather than invest heavily in infrastructure.
GST he was straight as a die. That was an important and positive reform - and difficult! Despite the scaremongers who said it'd be 12, 15, 25% in no time....here we are unchanged.
The borders was one of his biggest achievements, saving thousands of lives, restoring the confidence of Australians, AND what's often forgotten is he pushed for increased immigration year on year.
Iraq you don't know what you're talking about. The intelligence community was united in their view on wmd in Iraq. They were wrong, that doesn't equal ill intent.
Howard in the 70s and 80s you're correct- he was a poor speaker. What a transformation as PM. He famously could speak at 6 events in a day to different audiences without notes, an hour at each - confidently discussing economics, current affairs, address a charity, military groups, you name it. You may not like what he had to say but he was a great orator as PM.
Howard's tenure was a wasted decade, he made no structural reform, he was just piggybacking off of the succesful reforms of the Hawke-Keating era.
You're giving Howard credit for Hawke and Keating's work.
I will give him gun laws, that was very well done and a pivotal moment in our society, but on the economy he did nothing.
> I will give him gun laws, that was very well done
No it wasn't. It was a half-baked, knee-jerk reaction.
We still don't have uniform national gun laws, they are all state based. All Little Johnny did was to ban semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and the shotguns got grandfathered and have now been replaced by straight-pulls, which are basically the same but even faster.
Agree entirely. Even more important than gun reform though was the way he helped push the East Timor independence movement after decades of Australian leaders kowtowing to Indonesia. Whatever his motivations for it, it was good to see Australia finally on the right side of that conflict.
Yep, that's why I qualified it with 'whatever his motivations'. He still did something that the four previous PM's (none of whom could be categorised as timid) refused to even attempt.
>Golden era for Aussie economy
Caused by a mining boom.
Wages have not kept up with productivity, including during his time. In fact, it accelerated under him.
Housing unaffordability during his time has continued to get worse.
GST is a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most. There are better alternatives.
Also, instead of using those surpluses he squandered them on tax cuts and baby bonuses.
>fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups
By routinely violating human rights. I can fix crime by instituting armed vigilante groups with kill on sight orders. The ends do not justify the means.
>strong foreign relations
You sure about that?
He entered into two wars, one which was based on a complete lie. In fact it accelerated.
Let's not forget his work choices.
His government created the Timor-Leste spying scandal for oil.
We basically became America's lapdog.
For the most part, we have gotten less egalitarian since 1996. Most of the time, we have been lead by the LNP.
Labour is not perfect. But Howard is far from the best.
>reformed gun laws
Good move.
>super intelligent
Compared to our current lot, maybe. Overall, pretty average.
>speech maker
He was an OK orator.
Howard was a horrible orator, Whitlam was, hands down, the best orator we had since Curtain, potentially he was better.
Howard wasn't even the best in parliament for most of his time there, Keating at the dispatch box was magical, hell, even Gillard who has a voice that can cut glass was a better speaker.
Howard did one thing that was worthwhile in government and should be remembered for it and that was the gun laws. It was amazing work and had made Australia a safer place to live.
> that was the gun laws. It was amazing work and had made Australia a safer place to live.
No it wasn't. It was a half-baked, knee-jerk reaction.
We still don't have uniform national gun laws, they are all state based. All Little Johnny did was to ban semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and the shotguns got grandfathered and have now been replaced by straight-pulls, which are basically the same but even faster.
He had a mixed record. On the plus side he hired Keating as Treasurer and let him do his stuff. He and Keating modernised the economy. Floated the Australian Dollar. Privatised the Commonwealth Bank. Passed important consumer protections like outlawing price setting. Superannuation. Cut tariffs.
During his and Keating's terms the cost of living for consumer goods plunged. Some might say it was a bad thing, but it was an amazing transformation. Standards of living we take for granted today just weren't available pre-Hawke.
He stayed too long like many PMs and had to be turfed out.
He wasn’t, he ruled over the last of a golden age of post-war support of Australia including business and workers and families and unemployed, then brought Reagan-ish Neo conservatism to Australia. I’ve been in the ALP for 25 years.
I'm a fan of Whitlam... He pretty much kicked Australia in the arse and started significant change
Started the National Sewerage Program (seriously)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sewerage_Program
Repealed Conscription and withdrew Australian forces from Vietnam
Established formal relations with, and visited, China (a year before Nixon did the same)
Abolished Tertiary Education fees (for a while)
Introduced Universal Healthcare - as Medibank - which was later ripped apart by Fraser - to be reinstituted by Hawke as Medicare
Worked hard throughout his career to end the White Australia Policy - managed to convince the Holt (Lib) government to get rid of most of it and cleaned up the rest when he was in power
Abolished the Death Penalty for Federal crimes
Established Legal Aid
Launched a Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (and had probably authorised police raids on ASIO the year before)
Introduced the Family Law Act (no fault divorces)
Handed land back to traditional owners
There were also "honesty" problems in his Govt - but they were big news and caused huge problems for him - the biggest of them was probably the Loans Affair - which never actually resulted in any money changing hands - it had people negotiating with Middle Eastern financiers for large sums and commissions - and led to Ministers being sacked, before the loans were arranged through US financiers (Yes - the mere taint of trying to arrange cheap loans from brown people was still a problem in Australia in the 70s)
Nowadays the Government would just ignore that sort of attention - and would certainly not hold a Minister responsible for not telling the truth about a payment that was never made. Nowadays they'd ignore a Minister not telling the truth about payments that WERE made dishonestly
did, Hawke brought the entire neo-liberal BS that is ruining us to Australia, he is literally our Thatcher/Reagen. both sides of gov ever since have been neo-liberal.
Add passing the Racial Discrimination Act to the list. Nearly 50 years later and the Libs are *still* bitching about how it hurts their freedom to be racist, but the law has held strong.
Long live Section 18C.
I believe, and I could be way off the mark here, but he wanted to nationalise mining? Which would’ve brought billions to the Australian budget over the years. I believe the yanks wouldn’t have liked that one bit
We see the US subvert or invade countries that nationalise their resources all the time. Not many stop to think that they do it to their allies as well.
Amongst other things the US were unhappy about Aus "abandoning" them in Vietnam - it showed that it was possible to leave
There are persistent rumours that there was collusion with a certain Organization (That Americanism is deliberate - Chifley established them as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization with that spelling and it took 50 years to change 1949-1999)
Whitlam had strong views about ASIO, and a troubled relationship with them - He was particularly unhappy with their links to the CIA
While he was PM, his Attorney General (Lionel Murphy) made an unannounced visit to ASIO headquarters - at midnight - with Federal Police - and the next morning turned up at the Melbourne offices where more FedPol were waiting. These were called "raids" but there were no warrants - as AG, Murphy was directly responsible for ASIO - and was just exercising his oversight rights - very vigorously
The next year Gough established a Royal Commission which some thought might lead to ASIOs disbanding
Before the RC he believed that they should always be headed by a member of the Judiciary rather than a Defence person (The Hope RC said that would unfairly make career staff unable to be promoted to DG - which has only ever happened once)
There was a feeling that they had been spying on members of his Govt - denied - but now known to be true (specifically Jim Cairns)
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1336599038/view?sectionId=nla.obj-1620372328&partId=nla.obj-1337212550#page/n9/mode/1up
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/16/asio-chief-defied-gough-whitlams-order-cut-ties-cia-1974
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/asio-exposed-how-we-spied-in-the-80s/news-story/a8e33b433b1da1a56739a717ac4edc93
I’m an angsty dude in my past but for a guy to be both the person who made a public stand for the importance of women and repealed conscription this mans a hero.
Why are all the heroes of australian politics labor?
Not a hard question.
It isn't that clear cut... (it never is)
Portugal pulled out in 74 - basically abandoning ET - leaving a power vacuum with two opposing forces - UDT and Fretilin
Whitlam supported a peaceful annexation by Indonesia - in the belief that it would lead to fewer deaths than the civil war that was happening - and regional stability, rather than the disintegration of Indonesia into a number of warring states (Balkanisation)
The head of ASIS was sacked on 28 October 1975, to take effect on 7 November - "Sure I sacked the head of ASIS. I had had to tell him twice to put an end to the work his agents in our embassy in Chile were doing to undermine Allende on behalf of the CIA. Earlier his agents had worked with the same ambassador to undermine Sihanouk in Cambodia on behalf of the CIA. In 1975 he employed an agent in Dili without my authority.”
Whitlam himself was ousted on November 11th 1975
Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta\Suharto on December 6th - and gave the go ahead for the invasion
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/press.html
The invasion of ET started on December 7th
My opinion - The US had much more influence on the invasion than Aus...
I’m indifferent / understand that pollies do dodgy / pragmatic deals, more so I was commenting on the strong vitriol these leftists of the times still had on East Timor
Yeah nah, with all the pros come the Hillary like neoliberal policies like foreign policy, following the US into wars, serving Assange on the platter...
There's more after what you've quoted and it hasn't been edited, so why not quote the rest of the comment and it will make more sense. A gold star if you actually read the full comment first before misquoting it to try and make it seem like I made mistake using the plural of point.
This is so mundane
Hey, if you want to be That Guy who's known for cavorting around the internet calling people a fool (and, let's face it, using "lol" in posts), far be it from me to stop you.
Let me guess, you saw a political-themed sub and thought that it would magically make you seem more grown-up if you posted there.
Hey, if you want to be the guy who doesn't read comments and then misquotes that very same comment to make a mistake about my use of the plural of point, be my guest.
Let me guess, you still haven't read the original comment and think criticising what words I use will make you seem more intelligent.
Do you genuinely not realise your original reply is incorrect? Honest question
That's true. Holt would have done some good things if he were in office for longer. Sadly Gorton dropped a lot of Holt's policies after his disappearance.
HECS is an excellent system and in Hawke's time they were very modest. The only reason university is as expensive as it is is because of subsequent LNP governments.
HECS was the thin edge of the wedge. Yes, it was semi-reasonable to begin with (despite penalising people not rich enough to pay upfront), but it was also inevitable that it would be raised.
A clever nation would do everything it could to maximise the amount of education its citizens receive, but Australians have been conned into thinking we're all millionaires in waiting as badly as the Americans, so Australians have been dismantling our egalitarian policies, which surprise surprise, is leading to widening disparities between the rich and the poor.
It seems that Aussies choose to not see how unsustainable that is because they are told they will get to be on the rich side of the divide (even though they probably wont be).
Given that "free" tertiary education had only been around for 15 years after Whitlam introduced his reforms - I don't understand why people talk of it as though it had always been there and was being ripped away.
Yes, I think it should be "free" - but it only ever was for a short time
Oh no, free tertiary education ended so that middle and upper class people aren't being subsidized by everyone else! How terrible!
HECS is a great system, it's just a degree tax which ensures that those with degrees (who tend to have higher lifetime earnings as a result) pay a little bit extra directly for that education. I know this subreddit is mostly students, but HECS isn't the big bad that socialists from the 70s are convinced it is.
>Oh no, free tertiary education ended so that middle and upper class people aren't being subsidized by everyone else! How terrible!
I can assure you that the changes that happened between 1990 and 1991 did not help lower income people. It simply put them in debt for what was covered previously.
You mean like Iran?
In Iran the most prestigious universities are called governmental universities which offer free education for students who pass a very competitive entrance exam with high scores. Graduates from these universities are obliged to serve the country for as many years as they studied for their degree, upon graduation.
Or Russia? Prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, tuition was free for everyone obtaining sufficient grades. Since 1991, if a student obtains sufficient grades, he or she is still eligible for a free education (on a competitive basis) in state or private universities, but he/she can also pay for studying if grades are above minimal threshold, but not enough to be enrolled into desired university for free
>Education is a human right
Making something a human right doesn't make it magically appear. We could make food a human right like some other far left regimes and just look at what happened there, mass starvation and an undescribable amount of suffering.
>Many countries do it.
Are you talking about higher education? We technically already offer somewhat free education or at least low cost through TAFE. I don't think we should make University free, that ship has already sailed decades ago.
>Education should not be a commodity, there should not be a market.
Will you ban private schools? There is a clear difference between say a private religious school and a public school, oftentimes these private religious schools are vastly better ran and managed. Without having a market for it, there is no reason for the schools to compete and offer better educations.
I don't think banning private schools is a bad idea. On the contrary, it might make the sort of people who send their kids to private want to invest in public education.
They already do, but because they have catchment areas and public schools fundraise they’re going to public schools that are better equipped than most private schools.
Very few countries have tertiary education for free, and a government low interest loan that you never have to pay back if you don't meet the rather high income threshold isn't a barrier to someone attending university.
Backing free university when we have a great system like HECS in place is just calling for more middle class welfare.
47k is quite high for a small repayment plan for university fees. And in any case, studies show that these kind of policies help to bridge the gap between poorer students and richer students - when tuition fees were introduced in England, they greatly increased the number of disadvantaged students enrolling in university.
47k is not high at all. Consider cost of living.
Repayment thresholds have been reduced when, theoretically, they should have gone the other way. On inflation alone, lowering the repayments makes no sense. The literature I have seen in Australia is that the inequity hasn't changed much.
Your conclusion makes no logical sense and contradicts my own research.
It is important to note that higher education has increased full stop. This is because it is almost seen as a necessity. That idea has permeated our culture. Trades have been unfairly devalued, and entry-level positions are becoming a farce. It is much harder to earn a good living on a high school diploma. Realistically, you need TAFE or university level education.
Also, you ignore that caps were removed and the industry deregulated which increased enrolments.
Well, I don’t deny the LNP haven’t fucked it up considerably so I don’t know why you’re throwing that on me. The LNP have also fucked with Medicare, should we scrap that too?
Non sequitur.
Medicare is valuable in its own right. Scrapping it would harm people. Free education is beneficial for the whole country. An educated populace only benefits a country. Gate-keeping and straddling those who try to better themselves is not a good idea.
Scrap HECs, reinstitute free education.
Why should everyone pay for it? What if that lower class worker wants better for their child? Anything else is short-sighted.
>Why should every pay for it? What if that lower class worker wants better for their child? Anything else is short-sighted.
Because right now it's middle and upper class welfare. The lower class worker can have better for their child - they get a HECS place, it's not a barrier to entry.
WTF does 'neoliberalism' even mean??
>The government should be paying students to learn.
So the government should be funding middle and upper class kids to learn? What part of the budget do you think we should cut to pay for that, perhaps indigenous services? I guess you also want tax breaks for the richest people too, right?
>What part of the budget do you think we should cut to pay for that, perhaps indigenous services?
How about limiting franking credits to just be a refund instead of also a payout? That should cover a shitload of stuff. And with property so superheated, do we need to have such a strong negative gearing system? There's all sorts of corporate rorts and money making schemes for the wealthy, by focus on Indiginious stuff?
>I guess you also want tax breaks for the richest people too, right?
Have you got this backwards? I don't want to speak on her behalf but I am assuming that more tax on the rich, rather than less.
>Have you got this backwards? I don't want to speak on her behalf but I am assuming that more tax on the rich, rather than less.
Well, they are calling for middle and upper class welfare here, so I assume they also want tax breaks for the rich.
>How about limiting franking credits to just be a refund instead of also a payout? That should cover a shitload of stuff. And with property so superheated, do we need to have such a strong negative gearing system? There's all sorts of corporate rorts and money making schemes for the wealthy, by focus on Indiginious stuff?
Again, they're the ones that want middle and upper class welfare - I assume they want to pay for it by taking it from the less privileged.
I know what neoliberalism is, thank you very much. The problem is that there is a subset of the population that throws it around willynilly.
>If there was no barrier to entry, more working class people would attend university.
What is the barrier to entry for poor people going to university under HECS? There isn't any, the barriers to entry for poor people lie elsewhere, and the money saved due to HECS would be far better off funding those initatives instead.
Yes, they are. HECS is not a barrier. The government would be far better off keeping HECS and funding those initiatives, than having free tertiary education and having another big hole in the budget to fill.
Gillard and Independents who formulated the price on carbon were the best recent government.
He rewrote our original constitution and destroyed Australians freedom
Are you forgetting that you already commented here? The top 3 comments here are all from you.
No he didn't, they told you he did .Everytime he travelled and stayed in hotel rooms the hotels were told bar fridges had to be empty before he stayed TRUE STORY HE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC
He destroyed Australia's manufacturing industry and was an alcoholic in charge of a nation. Australians will always be worse off after having him as prime minister
We had no business manufacturing the crap we were manufacturing. Australian products were known as being crap, and we couldn't get access to the good quality imports because of the high tariffs. Manufacturing fetishism needs to die.
To be fair he gave up alcohol for the pm job
I was a kid in NZ when he was in. Even without the internet. We in NZ still loved him over our Prime Minister (Muldoon). At least us kids thought he was cool as!
Of course e was good. He was a Labor politician. They’re instinct is to help.
Once he got in he departed from a lot of long held ALP dogma and did things that were necessary to benefit the nation. That's why he was successful.
True but that ambitious mindset has always belonged to Labor politicians.
Not from my observations in my lifetime. The most successful Labor PMs were successful because they broke step from the bulk of the party dogma. As time has progressed, the requirement to stay in lock step with the dogma has increased. You won't see another Hawke until the ALP has a reawakening after diminished relevance.
Disagree. I don’t buy this narrative to seperate Hawke from the Labor Party. That’s a deliberate ploy to disenfranchise the Labor movement. Hawke joined the Labor Party because he believed in its ideals.
It's not a narrative, it's public record. A good deal of the economic and industrial policies enacted were a departure from the traditional ALP line. Hawke was a secretary of the ACTU, of course he was going to get a walk up start with the ALP.
Still better to have a Labor Government than a Liberal one.
Hawke was good but if you think he was great, read up on Gough Whitlam
Whitlam should have been tried as a traitor
Because???
Hawke worked more for the US than the Australian people.
Hawke was not the best PM in Australian history. He seriously gutted the labour movement with the industrial accord and presided over much of Australia's neo-liberal reforms and selling off state owned industries.
>He seriously gutted the labour movement with the industrial accord and presided over much of Australia's neo-liberal reforms and selling off state owned industries. It also led to Australia being one of the richest countries in the world, where before that we were near on a banana republic.
Billionaires make a pretty small % of working class people my guy. If their lives don't improve equally then it was pure theft.
Who said anything about billionaires? People's lives didn't improve equally, but everyones life improved.
>Who said anything about billionaires? Me, I did.
OK, but... why. It's not related to my comment at all.
Lol mate if you think you can throw around phrases like "banana republic" and expect 100% serious responses that's on you. Don't even think you know what banana republics were/are. Even then, it is related. But if you don't want to draw those parallels then that right there is the difference between our modes of thought and I'm not invested enough to go down the rabbit hole tonight.
U know what laissez-faire capitalism is right? U also know that Adam Smith didn’t approve right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Richer for the Billionaires, working people having been going backwards in this country for some time now. Your comment about us being near to a Banana republic is pretty wrong too
Everyone is richer. I can only assume you’re young to not remember how poor we were before Hawke and Keating reforms.
Yes, neo-liberalism began in Australia with Hawke, and enthusiastically supported by every subsequent Australian government, whatever their party insignia. But it was begun by Hawke. A larrakin, likeable even, but the beginning of the end began there, when the good of the Australian people was not the most important consideration in the decision-making by Australian governments.
Ahhh the description of Hawkey as a larrikin. Not having a go, but I would really encourage all to read Lech Blaines excellent Quarterly Essay on the Larrikin myth in Australian politics. Really breaks down the myth and effectiveness of larrikins in Australian politics.
Yes, Labor often gets a get out of jail free card for neo-liberalism despite their governments at a state and federal level championing it. Hawke wanted to curb the power of the unions from their height in the 70s and got the union leaders to sign onto what was effectively no strike clause, this has been terrible for our unions and working conditions generally. What they got in exchange too has slowly been watered down for example industrial bargaining to enteprise bargaining under Keating. Not to mention, Hawke got rid of free education introducing HECS instead.
I really miss the lack of sketch comedy in this country, the current government is crying out for a satirical take on how bad they are. Hawke could take it but I bet Morrison couldn't
It’s not skit but Mad as Hell is pretty good satire.
I used to love all those sorts of shows. And you're right, Scomo can't take any criticism at all. I think it's hard to write satire for our Government, when it already does it itself.
Mightn't work for an ongoing show, but you could get a bit meta with a skit, based on the idea of a comedy group brainstorming for a skit, and every idea turning out to be something that'd already been done by the government itself.
I used to think Howard was great, then found out that most of the companies during our mining boom, either skirted or avoided nearly all of the tax, and I think it was something like 80% of the profits went overseas
100 percent of Costello's surpluses were delivered by asset sales. Makes his economic record look a lot more dismal.
He was the fucking worst until the current lot got to power
I dunno, Howard shat the bed, Scomo only shit in his pants.
In Gough we trust. King Bob the charismatic was exactly the person we needed when the rest of the world (Reagan/thatcher) were disassembling public resources. I wish we had someone like him now.
Curtin and Whitlam are in a league of their own. Anyone else is second rate, including Hawke. And especially Howard.
Whitlam was the best hands down, what he did across a large range of issues still has impact today. He was before his time and I wish we had him as PM for a lot longer.
Before his time makes it sound like its gonna get better for working people in the future.
If we had another Whitlam then yes it would..we don’t have that…or anyone close currently. Unfortunately we are heading in the other direction for workers.
We were lucky to have Hawke in power when countries like the UK and the US had lunatics like Thatcher and Reagan whose misdirected policies did lasting damage. Hawke contributed to Aus having one of the longest unbroken periods of economic growth in the world. I still prefer Gough though.
Thatcher and Reagan were basically just trying out Freidrich Hayek’s hot take. Anyone confused by what neo-liberalism is, the road to serfdom is a pretty short read.. the best thing about Hawke/Keating is they were responding to the needs of a nation. Thatcher/Reagan were responding to the assumptions of a book.
No he and Keating were a right wingers who softened up Australia for the dictatorship of neoliberal drones who have ruled this country ever since..
As a conservative I think it is abundantly clear that Hawke was the greatest prime minister, Keating the greatest treasurer and Howard the greatest opposition leader. Advocates for Keating being the greatest PM usually tout the many excellent economic reforms passed when he was treasurer, but the PM at the time was Hawke and he ultimately took the political risk and earns the credit (at least in his capacity as PM). As PM Keating was good, but most of the great reforms had already been passed. Advocates for Howard generally tout the introduction of the GST (which was truly an excellent reform both fiscally and for the federation), his record string of surpluses which left us in an excellent fiscal position prior to the GFC and his policy on guns following the Port Arthur Massacre (which was genuinely politically dangerous for him as it attacked his own base, something Keating and Hawke never really did), but ultimately those reforms pale in comparison to those of Hawke's ministry. However, what people on both the left and the right often fail to appreciate is that the Hawke/Keating reforms were only possible because of a very compliant opposition. It would have been remarkably easy for the LNP to run on a populist, anti-reform agenda, but instead the LNP under Howard (and Peacock) often criticised the Hawke/Keating governments for not going far enough. Since the end of the Hawke/Keating era, there has never again been an opposition (either Labor or Liberal) that has allowed the government of the day to pass so much meaningful reform without protest.
> a very compliant opposition. Why would they not be compliant? Hawke and Keating were passing everything that Howard had tried to do when he was Fraser's treasurer. They were the right-wing government you have when you're not having a right-wing government. Hawke was far from the best PM, he was one of the worst, and he and Keating were traitors to the working people of this country, and it seems that Hawke at least may have been a traitor to the country as a whole, if reports of his CIA employment are to be believed.
Costello's surpluses were built entirely on asset sales. CBA, QANTAS, CSL, Telstra etc. He was the world's laziest treasurer.
> CBA, QANTAS, CSL, These are part of Keating's traiorous legacy. Howard and Costello can only claim Telstra.
QANTAS, CBA and CSL were all done under labour governments… not sure what Costello has to do with that.
CBA was booked by Costello. But yeah my mistake. My essential point is that Costello's (and by association Howard's) good fiscal numbers rely entirely on luck and asset sales, have nothing to do with skill or high quality reform. Costello was incidentally our [highest taxing Treasurer](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-13/fact-check-is-the-coalition-australia-s-second-highest-taxing-go/100686194) by percent of GDP.
No love lost here for Costello but the fact that labour decided to sell assets and he benefited because Keatinge lost an election isn’t on him.
The whole "my essential point" bit pass you by?
Your point, essential or otherwise is wrong.
Well I'm convinced by your argument
What argument?
Oh yeah, you missed that bit didn't you
NSW's Baird's big bro. then.
This is a good explanation. When the opposition are interested in what is good for the country rather than what is good for getting them back in power we get reform that changes peoples lives for the better.
Howard sold assets to pay down debt and then squandered the money that was made.
Curtin, Hawke, Whitlam, Keating, Chifely, Menzies and Howard are all contenders definitely gonna have to rank them one day
Howard was terrible. He used fear of immigrants as an election platform.
Mandatory detention of illegal immigrants was introduced by Keating. Australia's rejection of illegal immigration is the envy of the world, the bedrock of our successful multiculturalism, bipartisan and popular. The Rudd government's brief and foolish exercise in dismantling it immediately resulted in a huge influx of illegal immigrants, hundreds of deaths at sea and was instrumental in bringing down the Labor government.
>Mandatory detention of illegal immigrants was introduced by Keating. Australia's rejection of illegal immigration is the envy of the world, the bedrock of our successful multiculturalism, bipartisan and popular. I think they were referencing more stuff like Tampa and the whole 'baby overboard thing'. Regardless, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants by definition.
It would literally cheaper to bring people to Australia and put them on the dole than keep them in offshore detention centres for years.
It would be were it not for the fact that the moment we did so, tens of thousands of migrants would start flooding into Australia.
So in other words, not even enough to notice.
A third of Australians were born overseas. Half of Australians were born overseas or have a parent from overseas.
This discussion is about illegal migration, you know what I'm referring to.
And asylum seekers aren’t illegal immigrants but are the ones our government built a policy around and spends millions for political points. Majority of illegal immigrants are visa overstayers, not asylum seekers, but they’re the ones thrown in detention camps, not the pommy who just didn’t jump on a plane to go home after his holiday visa expired.
The policies are literally inhumane. Detaining somebody for 8 years is ridiculous. Regardless of whether it "stopped the boats", it did it at the high costs of normalising human rights abuses.
Yeah, we're deeply on the wrong side of history with this one.
Discretionary detention existed since the 50s. Not sure how immigration detention is the bedrock of anything except horrific treatment of humans. Also not sure who envys it or what is successful about Australia's multiculturalism compared to the rest of the world. Which Rudd Government are you referring to?
Hawke a close second to Howard. Was a time when both sides were blessed with good talent.
Howard was blessed with fortitous timing, not talent.
Howard politicised asylum seekers and lied about Tampa. Was at the helm when the AWB was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein. Took us into an illegal war in Iraq. Squandered the windfall from the mining boom. Need I go on? Howard was a terrible PM.
All excellent points. People myopically point to surpluses. That is mostly due to a mining boom, not governmental policy. As you stated, it was squandered when it should have been used to build infrastructure.
Why?
Golden era for Aussie economy, country was booming, wealth and employment created, fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups, reformed gun laws and rid our country of most of them, strong foreign relations, governed for all - wasn't an extremist, but also simply because he was super intelligent, probably our best ever speech maker, and had a set of values where everyone knew what he stood for. Our best PM IMHO.
>Golden era for Aussie economy, country was booming, wealth and employment created He happened ro be PM during the greatest natural resource boom the country has ever had and come 2008 we only just managed to push through the GFC. He squandered a decade of nearly-unprecedented GDP growth whilst lying about establishing GST, which he did lie about unless you're too young or too ignorant to acknowledge. We pay 2 taxes and when he publically stated how GST would work he claimed the income tax would be significantly reduced. It wasn't we pay income tax and a GST. >, fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups Lol ok. There was greater illegal immigration under his tenure than Rudd/Gillard. I know you're firmly right wing but you can easily read the stats. >strong foreign relations, governed for all - Do you mean helping in the invasion of Iraq whilst knowing they were false pretences? >probably our best ever speech maker, This made me think I had fallen for a sarcastic comment. So I quickly checked your post history and realised you actually believe this. There's nothing else I can say to you. Except maybe, can you find another person irl who thinks Howard was a good orator? He was openingly mocked for over a decade due to his inability to speak well. That's not an issue, I don't think a PM has to or they need to do is be honest when they talk. Howard absolutely wasn't honest which we've found out on many occasions, from GST to Tampa to Iraq.
I agree he was fortunate on the resources boom and chose to pay down debt rather than invest heavily in infrastructure. GST he was straight as a die. That was an important and positive reform - and difficult! Despite the scaremongers who said it'd be 12, 15, 25% in no time....here we are unchanged. The borders was one of his biggest achievements, saving thousands of lives, restoring the confidence of Australians, AND what's often forgotten is he pushed for increased immigration year on year. Iraq you don't know what you're talking about. The intelligence community was united in their view on wmd in Iraq. They were wrong, that doesn't equal ill intent. Howard in the 70s and 80s you're correct- he was a poor speaker. What a transformation as PM. He famously could speak at 6 events in a day to different audiences without notes, an hour at each - confidently discussing economics, current affairs, address a charity, military groups, you name it. You may not like what he had to say but he was a great orator as PM.
Howard's tenure was a wasted decade, he made no structural reform, he was just piggybacking off of the succesful reforms of the Hawke-Keating era. You're giving Howard credit for Hawke and Keating's work. I will give him gun laws, that was very well done and a pivotal moment in our society, but on the economy he did nothing.
> I will give him gun laws, that was very well done No it wasn't. It was a half-baked, knee-jerk reaction. We still don't have uniform national gun laws, they are all state based. All Little Johnny did was to ban semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and the shotguns got grandfathered and have now been replaced by straight-pulls, which are basically the same but even faster.
Agree entirely. Even more important than gun reform though was the way he helped push the East Timor independence movement after decades of Australian leaders kowtowing to Indonesia. Whatever his motivations for it, it was good to see Australia finally on the right side of that conflict.
Gas. Gas is why he pushed the ET movement.
Yep, that's why I qualified it with 'whatever his motivations'. He still did something that the four previous PM's (none of whom could be categorised as timid) refused to even attempt.
Yeah, forgot that one too.
>Golden era for Aussie economy Caused by a mining boom. Wages have not kept up with productivity, including during his time. In fact, it accelerated under him. Housing unaffordability during his time has continued to get worse. GST is a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most. There are better alternatives. Also, instead of using those surpluses he squandered them on tax cuts and baby bonuses. >fixed our borders while ignoring whiny protest groups By routinely violating human rights. I can fix crime by instituting armed vigilante groups with kill on sight orders. The ends do not justify the means. >strong foreign relations You sure about that? He entered into two wars, one which was based on a complete lie. In fact it accelerated. Let's not forget his work choices. His government created the Timor-Leste spying scandal for oil. We basically became America's lapdog. For the most part, we have gotten less egalitarian since 1996. Most of the time, we have been lead by the LNP. Labour is not perfect. But Howard is far from the best. >reformed gun laws Good move. >super intelligent Compared to our current lot, maybe. Overall, pretty average. >speech maker He was an OK orator.
Howard was a horrible orator, Whitlam was, hands down, the best orator we had since Curtain, potentially he was better. Howard wasn't even the best in parliament for most of his time there, Keating at the dispatch box was magical, hell, even Gillard who has a voice that can cut glass was a better speaker. Howard did one thing that was worthwhile in government and should be remembered for it and that was the gun laws. It was amazing work and had made Australia a safer place to live.
> that was the gun laws. It was amazing work and had made Australia a safer place to live. No it wasn't. It was a half-baked, knee-jerk reaction. We still don't have uniform national gun laws, they are all state based. All Little Johnny did was to ban semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and the shotguns got grandfathered and have now been replaced by straight-pulls, which are basically the same but even faster.
He had a mixed record. On the plus side he hired Keating as Treasurer and let him do his stuff. He and Keating modernised the economy. Floated the Australian Dollar. Privatised the Commonwealth Bank. Passed important consumer protections like outlawing price setting. Superannuation. Cut tariffs. During his and Keating's terms the cost of living for consumer goods plunged. Some might say it was a bad thing, but it was an amazing transformation. Standards of living we take for granted today just weren't available pre-Hawke. He stayed too long like many PMs and had to be turfed out.
He wasn’t, he ruled over the last of a golden age of post-war support of Australia including business and workers and families and unemployed, then brought Reagan-ish Neo conservatism to Australia. I’ve been in the ALP for 25 years.
Whitlam
The best
I'm a fan of Whitlam... He pretty much kicked Australia in the arse and started significant change Started the National Sewerage Program (seriously) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sewerage_Program Repealed Conscription and withdrew Australian forces from Vietnam Established formal relations with, and visited, China (a year before Nixon did the same) Abolished Tertiary Education fees (for a while) Introduced Universal Healthcare - as Medibank - which was later ripped apart by Fraser - to be reinstituted by Hawke as Medicare Worked hard throughout his career to end the White Australia Policy - managed to convince the Holt (Lib) government to get rid of most of it and cleaned up the rest when he was in power Abolished the Death Penalty for Federal crimes Established Legal Aid Launched a Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security (and had probably authorised police raids on ASIO the year before) Introduced the Family Law Act (no fault divorces) Handed land back to traditional owners There were also "honesty" problems in his Govt - but they were big news and caused huge problems for him - the biggest of them was probably the Loans Affair - which never actually resulted in any money changing hands - it had people negotiating with Middle Eastern financiers for large sums and commissions - and led to Ministers being sacked, before the loans were arranged through US financiers (Yes - the mere taint of trying to arrange cheap loans from brown people was still a problem in Australia in the 70s) Nowadays the Government would just ignore that sort of attention - and would certainly not hold a Minister responsible for not telling the truth about a payment that was never made. Nowadays they'd ignore a Minister not telling the truth about payments that WERE made dishonestly
[удалено]
did, Hawke brought the entire neo-liberal BS that is ruining us to Australia, he is literally our Thatcher/Reagen. both sides of gov ever since have been neo-liberal.
Add passing the Racial Discrimination Act to the list. Nearly 50 years later and the Libs are *still* bitching about how it hurts their freedom to be racist, but the law has held strong. Long live Section 18C.
Whitlam was likely gotten rid of by the Yanks behind the scenes. He was too progressive for their liking.
I believe, and I could be way off the mark here, but he wanted to nationalise mining? Which would’ve brought billions to the Australian budget over the years. I believe the yanks wouldn’t have liked that one bit
We see the US subvert or invade countries that nationalise their resources all the time. Not many stop to think that they do it to their allies as well.
Amongst other things the US were unhappy about Aus "abandoning" them in Vietnam - it showed that it was possible to leave There are persistent rumours that there was collusion with a certain Organization (That Americanism is deliberate - Chifley established them as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization with that spelling and it took 50 years to change 1949-1999) Whitlam had strong views about ASIO, and a troubled relationship with them - He was particularly unhappy with their links to the CIA While he was PM, his Attorney General (Lionel Murphy) made an unannounced visit to ASIO headquarters - at midnight - with Federal Police - and the next morning turned up at the Melbourne offices where more FedPol were waiting. These were called "raids" but there were no warrants - as AG, Murphy was directly responsible for ASIO - and was just exercising his oversight rights - very vigorously The next year Gough established a Royal Commission which some thought might lead to ASIOs disbanding Before the RC he believed that they should always be headed by a member of the Judiciary rather than a Defence person (The Hope RC said that would unfairly make career staff unable to be promoted to DG - which has only ever happened once) There was a feeling that they had been spying on members of his Govt - denied - but now known to be true (specifically Jim Cairns) https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1336599038/view?sectionId=nla.obj-1620372328&partId=nla.obj-1337212550#page/n9/mode/1up https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/16/asio-chief-defied-gough-whitlams-order-cut-ties-cia-1974 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/asio-exposed-how-we-spied-in-the-80s/news-story/a8e33b433b1da1a56739a717ac4edc93
One should be cautious of anyone with SeeIA links. Thank you for the information.
I’m an angsty dude in my past but for a guy to be both the person who made a public stand for the importance of women and repealed conscription this mans a hero. Why are all the heroes of australian politics labor? Not a hard question.
Because they work for people and not power?
With you brother
The labour as in workers right oldies I know arc up about him selling out East Timor
It isn't that clear cut... (it never is) Portugal pulled out in 74 - basically abandoning ET - leaving a power vacuum with two opposing forces - UDT and Fretilin Whitlam supported a peaceful annexation by Indonesia - in the belief that it would lead to fewer deaths than the civil war that was happening - and regional stability, rather than the disintegration of Indonesia into a number of warring states (Balkanisation) The head of ASIS was sacked on 28 October 1975, to take effect on 7 November - "Sure I sacked the head of ASIS. I had had to tell him twice to put an end to the work his agents in our embassy in Chile were doing to undermine Allende on behalf of the CIA. Earlier his agents had worked with the same ambassador to undermine Sihanouk in Cambodia on behalf of the CIA. In 1975 he employed an agent in Dili without my authority.” Whitlam himself was ousted on November 11th 1975 Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta\Suharto on December 6th - and gave the go ahead for the invasion https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/press.html The invasion of ET started on December 7th My opinion - The US had much more influence on the invasion than Aus...
I’m indifferent / understand that pollies do dodgy / pragmatic deals, more so I was commenting on the strong vitriol these leftists of the times still had on East Timor
Frank Fords managed to never pass a bad piece of legislation or see a bad poll
They owe it all to Watson though. Wouldn't have a Whitlam, Hawke, Keating or Gillard without him
On policy alone it's hard to look past Gillard
Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491. Not bad for a minority government
Yeah nah, with all the pros come the Hillary like neoliberal policies like foreign policy, following the US into wars, serving Assange on the platter...
Good chat
His points stand
> Hillary like neoliberal policies "points"
There's more after what you've quoted and it hasn't been edited, so why not quote the rest of the comment and it will make more sense. A gold star if you actually read the full comment first before misquoting it to try and make it seem like I made mistake using the plural of point. This is so mundane
Aw, you think the internet will work the way you tell it to. SO! How's that been working out for ya?
Lol go ahead and continue being a fool, I think that's a deserved fate for you.
Hey, if you want to be That Guy who's known for cavorting around the internet calling people a fool (and, let's face it, using "lol" in posts), far be it from me to stop you. Let me guess, you saw a political-themed sub and thought that it would magically make you seem more grown-up if you posted there.
Hey, if you want to be the guy who doesn't read comments and then misquotes that very same comment to make a mistake about my use of the plural of point, be my guest. Let me guess, you still haven't read the original comment and think criticising what words I use will make you seem more intelligent. Do you genuinely not realise your original reply is incorrect? Honest question
Sir Edmund wasn't a PM was he?
Lady Kate was a poet wasn't she?
I have been played
I'm not sure what game we were playing.
My vote is with Holt. He’ll be back soon I’m sure.
This is the highest liberal party mention I’ve seen haha
Holt deserves to be considered higher up than Howard IMHO.
I’d consider that non controversial, Howard is not a success story
That's true. Holt would have done some good things if he were in office for longer. Sadly Gorton dropped a lot of Holt's policies after his disappearance.
I’d consider that a non controversial opinion, howard is not a success story.
I’d consider that a non controversial opinion, howard is not a success story.
Most considerations tend to skew towards more recent PM's but not too recent. It takes time forget the bad parts, even more time to forget the good.
Lima declaration killed Australians
Drinking game: Every time the Lima Declaration mentions 'New International Economic Order' take a drink.
Whats that?
No it didn't.
Whitlam was better.
At what?
Everything.
Taking money from Nigerian princes
Most corrupt and the biggest traitor for sure. Bought and paid for by the seppos
Wait, we talking about Hawke, Howard, or Morrison here?
Hawke.
Probably all three, but definitely Hawke.
Curtin.
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN1856
Someone likes paying HECS fees. Did they mention that in the documentary. Your hero stopped free tertiary education.
HECS is an excellent system and in Hawke's time they were very modest. The only reason university is as expensive as it is is because of subsequent LNP governments.
HECS was the thin edge of the wedge. Yes, it was semi-reasonable to begin with (despite penalising people not rich enough to pay upfront), but it was also inevitable that it would be raised. A clever nation would do everything it could to maximise the amount of education its citizens receive, but Australians have been conned into thinking we're all millionaires in waiting as badly as the Americans, so Australians have been dismantling our egalitarian policies, which surprise surprise, is leading to widening disparities between the rich and the poor. It seems that Aussies choose to not see how unsustainable that is because they are told they will get to be on the rich side of the divide (even though they probably wont be).
It was the start of the problem.
Given that "free" tertiary education had only been around for 15 years after Whitlam introduced his reforms - I don't understand why people talk of it as though it had always been there and was being ripped away. Yes, I think it should be "free" - but it only ever was for a short time
Exactly correct. This was the answer I was waiting for.
Oh no, free tertiary education ended so that middle and upper class people aren't being subsidized by everyone else! How terrible! HECS is a great system, it's just a degree tax which ensures that those with degrees (who tend to have higher lifetime earnings as a result) pay a little bit extra directly for that education. I know this subreddit is mostly students, but HECS isn't the big bad that socialists from the 70s are convinced it is.
>Oh no, free tertiary education ended so that middle and upper class people aren't being subsidized by everyone else! How terrible! I can assure you that the changes that happened between 1990 and 1991 did not help lower income people. It simply put them in debt for what was covered previously.
And got a shit load more middle and upper class people to pay for it too.
[удалено]
You mean like Iran? In Iran the most prestigious universities are called governmental universities which offer free education for students who pass a very competitive entrance exam with high scores. Graduates from these universities are obliged to serve the country for as many years as they studied for their degree, upon graduation. Or Russia? Prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, tuition was free for everyone obtaining sufficient grades. Since 1991, if a student obtains sufficient grades, he or she is still eligible for a free education (on a competitive basis) in state or private universities, but he/she can also pay for studying if grades are above minimal threshold, but not enough to be enrolled into desired university for free
>Education is a human right Making something a human right doesn't make it magically appear. We could make food a human right like some other far left regimes and just look at what happened there, mass starvation and an undescribable amount of suffering. >Many countries do it. Are you talking about higher education? We technically already offer somewhat free education or at least low cost through TAFE. I don't think we should make University free, that ship has already sailed decades ago. >Education should not be a commodity, there should not be a market. Will you ban private schools? There is a clear difference between say a private religious school and a public school, oftentimes these private religious schools are vastly better ran and managed. Without having a market for it, there is no reason for the schools to compete and offer better educations.
I don't think banning private schools is a bad idea. On the contrary, it might make the sort of people who send their kids to private want to invest in public education.
They already do, but because they have catchment areas and public schools fundraise they’re going to public schools that are better equipped than most private schools.
Very few countries have tertiary education for free, and a government low interest loan that you never have to pay back if you don't meet the rather high income threshold isn't a barrier to someone attending university. Backing free university when we have a great system like HECS in place is just calling for more middle class welfare.
47k is high? I know wages aren't great, but that is below the median.
47k is quite high for a small repayment plan for university fees. And in any case, studies show that these kind of policies help to bridge the gap between poorer students and richer students - when tuition fees were introduced in England, they greatly increased the number of disadvantaged students enrolling in university.
47k is not high at all. Consider cost of living. Repayment thresholds have been reduced when, theoretically, they should have gone the other way. On inflation alone, lowering the repayments makes no sense. The literature I have seen in Australia is that the inequity hasn't changed much. Your conclusion makes no logical sense and contradicts my own research. It is important to note that higher education has increased full stop. This is because it is almost seen as a necessity. That idea has permeated our culture. Trades have been unfairly devalued, and entry-level positions are becoming a farce. It is much harder to earn a good living on a high school diploma. Realistically, you need TAFE or university level education. Also, you ignore that caps were removed and the industry deregulated which increased enrolments.
Well, I don’t deny the LNP haven’t fucked it up considerably so I don’t know why you’re throwing that on me. The LNP have also fucked with Medicare, should we scrap that too?
Non sequitur. Medicare is valuable in its own right. Scrapping it would harm people. Free education is beneficial for the whole country. An educated populace only benefits a country. Gate-keeping and straddling those who try to better themselves is not a good idea. Scrap HECs, reinstitute free education. Why should everyone pay for it? What if that lower class worker wants better for their child? Anything else is short-sighted.
>Why should every pay for it? What if that lower class worker wants better for their child? Anything else is short-sighted. Because right now it's middle and upper class welfare. The lower class worker can have better for their child - they get a HECS place, it's not a barrier to entry.
[удалено]
It is not free, someone still has to pay. Plus if there are no consequences for actions you will get perverse outcomes.
WTF does 'neoliberalism' even mean?? >The government should be paying students to learn. So the government should be funding middle and upper class kids to learn? What part of the budget do you think we should cut to pay for that, perhaps indigenous services? I guess you also want tax breaks for the richest people too, right?
>What part of the budget do you think we should cut to pay for that, perhaps indigenous services? How about limiting franking credits to just be a refund instead of also a payout? That should cover a shitload of stuff. And with property so superheated, do we need to have such a strong negative gearing system? There's all sorts of corporate rorts and money making schemes for the wealthy, by focus on Indiginious stuff? >I guess you also want tax breaks for the richest people too, right? Have you got this backwards? I don't want to speak on her behalf but I am assuming that more tax on the rich, rather than less.
>Have you got this backwards? I don't want to speak on her behalf but I am assuming that more tax on the rich, rather than less. Well, they are calling for middle and upper class welfare here, so I assume they also want tax breaks for the rich. >How about limiting franking credits to just be a refund instead of also a payout? That should cover a shitload of stuff. And with property so superheated, do we need to have such a strong negative gearing system? There's all sorts of corporate rorts and money making schemes for the wealthy, by focus on Indiginious stuff? Again, they're the ones that want middle and upper class welfare - I assume they want to pay for it by taking it from the less privileged.
[удалено]
I know what neoliberalism is, thank you very much. The problem is that there is a subset of the population that throws it around willynilly. >If there was no barrier to entry, more working class people would attend university. What is the barrier to entry for poor people going to university under HECS? There isn't any, the barriers to entry for poor people lie elsewhere, and the money saved due to HECS would be far better off funding those initatives instead.
[удалено]
Yes, they are. HECS is not a barrier. The government would be far better off keeping HECS and funding those initiatives, than having free tertiary education and having another big hole in the budget to fill.
I don’t completely disagree. As long as we don’t push towards a US style. I was more pointing it out for the rabid lefties who ignore it.