Crunch time: welcome to a key week in this Parliament

Between one thing and another, this week will be one of the most significant weeks in long-term economic policy for years — probably since the financial crisis.

The repeal of the carbon price will cost the government around $4 billion a year in lost revenue, at a time when there is such a “budget emergency” that high-income earners have been slapped with a deficit levy. More to the point, it will delay the necessary decarbonisation of the Australian economy by years, significantly increasing the cost of that process in the view of such hardline environmentalist bodies as the federal Treasury and the International Energy Agency. To the extent that Australia’s decision to not merely halt but reverse action on reducing its carbon emissions undermines the willingness of other economies to undertake their own emissions abatement schemes, it also imposes additional costs on our children and developing countries exposed to climate change.

Then there’s the opposition’s move to prevent the government from repealing another critical Labor economic move, the Future of Financial Advice reforms, with a disallowance motion to be voted on in the Senate tomorrow.

There are serious economic and fiscal stakes in play here, too. Gutting FOFA will mean a transfer of between $300 million and $550 million a year from Australians to financial planners, the big banks and AMP, meaning clients of retail funds will be billions of dollars poorer in retirement and more likely to rely on the aged pension in decades ahead. If anything, the cost will be greater given there’s a major drafting flaw in the regulations repealing FOFA which will allow conflicted remuneration of any kind as long as it is calculated indirectly.

The high cost of superannuation funds management is an issue that will be a key test of how serious David Murray’s financial services inquiry is, when it releases its interim report tomorrow. The cost of superannuation was flagged by the Reserve Bank in its submission to the inquiry, but Murray’s background not merely as a former bank CEO but as one of the key drivers of the Commonwealth Bank’s entry into wealth management suggests the risk that the issue may be tackled less seriously than it needs to be. In that case, it will be emblematic of a review that began life as one of Treasurer Joe Hockey’s best ideas in opposition, only for it to be nobbled once he was in government.

The big banks and their alliance with the Coalition makes them one of the most powerful economic forces in the country …”

The big banks are continuing to push the line that they need deregulation. The Australian Bankers’ Association has lamented that tomorrow could be more about preventing the big bank-driven repeal of FOFA than about the Murray Inquiry; the National Australia Bank has complained that the government’s FOFA reforms substantially increased its compliance costs and they are “unsustainable” (having posted a record half-year profit of over $3 billion two months ago); former CBA head Ralph Norris says the extensive $100+ million rorting of customers by Commonwealth Financial Planning was just a few rogue planners and not a systemic problem.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , , ,

Categories: Economy, Federal

15 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. This all begs the questions: is the lack of support for the carbon tax related to the lack of any global warming for the past 17 years?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm

  2. What is so significant about 17 years ago in the history of this planet, except that it was an unusually warm year so it is convenient for your position?
    If we picked 18 years or 16 years to measure from the result would be different.

    by Robert Smith on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm

  3. Robert - the result would not be different if we picked 16 or 18 years. Hey, use 2000 as the start point - no warming for 15 years.

    This is significant because we have record CO2 emissions yet no warming. High emissions were supposed to cause warming.

    When is the theory wrong? If we get 20 years without warming or 25… is the theory wrong then? Or is this theory not falsifiable?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm

  4. Many aspects of the budget were based on inaccuracies designed to conjure up fear and anxiety.

    These emotions were then played on to substantiate this unfair budget.

    Do they really think we can’t see through the camouflage? The Australian public is not that dumb !!!

    Here is a cartoon on the budget … .


    by cartoonmick on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm

  5. Global warming isn’t proved or disproved over a a decade or two, you have to look over a greater time series.

    In the graph below you can clearly see the upward trend despite the white noise you get periodically in temperatures, from year to year that obscure the big picture.

    by arctic winds on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm

  6. How “skeptics” view global temperature over time graphs:

    by Charles Miller on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm

  7. The theory is wrong when it can’t account for increased temperature of deep ocean. But hey, repeat a big lie often enough…

    by Chris Hartwell on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:56 pm

  8. Hi, Robert, the no warming for 17 years ago claim, is significant and informative for a number of reasons. It is also a hilarious insight into why climate change deniers, don’t for a millisecond deserve to be called skeptics; as it shows fairly conclusively, that they don’t adopt the slightest bit of skepticism to the rubbish that they repeat.
    Firstly, the 17 years ago, refers to the point that they like to start their graphs and their arguments, which is the super El Nino year of 1998. The spike in temperatures of that year can be clearly seen in the graphs below.

    What can also be seen is that a few of the years after 1998 are warmer: which deniers usually like to ignore. And also what can be seen, is the century long trend line, that despite the normal ups and downs, shows an obvious upward progress. It is here that the deniers make the mistake that every high school science student is warned about. That is, they give more significance to short term fluctuations, than long term trends. Or in other words, they’re more interested in the noise, not the signal.
    But what I find truly hilarious is the 17 years figure. Now, even if you allow them to include the yet to be completed 2014 in their data set (which any sane scientist wouldn’t), their maths still has just a minor problem. Which is, as far as I can work out, 2014 minus 1998 is 16, not 17. And they, despite being often corrected, have been making this mistake for years. That is, back in 2012, they shouted, “no warming for 15 years!” Why, Tamas even gives us a wonderful demonstration of this blind groupthink, by using 2000 as a starting point, and getting 15.
    And it is truly bizarre, how the tabloid and talk back leaders of the denial movement, keep on proselytizing such basic rubbish, and their allegedly skeptic followers, keep on repeating it. And it is even more bizarre, how such stupendously sloppy work, has been used as a basis, to launch a global attack on reputable scientists, quality research work and concerned, thinking citizens.

    by Electric Lardyland on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm

  9. None of the IPCC’s models predicted a “pause” in warming that lasted this long. Our record CO2 emissions are meant to be warming the planet. Why isn’t aren’t they?

    And don’t tell me the heat is going into the deep oceans - how does an atmospheric gas warm up the deep oceans BEFORE it warms up the atmosphere?

    Who is in denial here guys?

    Electric - 2000 until today = 14yrs, 6 months - which can be rounded to 15 years.

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm

  10. Oh dear, haven’t done a maths test for a while, have you, Tammy?
    Unfortunately, I have to go out now, but there’s a fair chance my friends will be wondering, why I’m chuckling away to myself.

    by Electric Lardyland on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:57 pm

  11. If the LNP gloats over the removal of the carbon tax, they are more stupid than I thought. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on anybody that the carbon tax was to be abolished in less than one year, 1 July 2015, anyway.
    At that time, the ETS would have commenced operation and the price of carbon would have decreased quite substantially. But this mob of drongos are going to leave us with no effective method of keeping CO2 emissions in check for the foreseeable future.
    Successive generations will not thank us for ignoring global warming.

    by CML on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

  12. Where am I wrong electric?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm

  13. Tamas - breathing?

    by AR on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:18 pm

  14. Don’t feed the trolls.

    by Penelope Milstein on Jul 15, 2014 at 3:05 am

  15. This just in, Tamas doesn’t understand thermodynamics.

    by Chris Hartwell on Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 am

« | »