The magic 2.5% in Swan’s Fiscal Outlook

When in doubt just wave the magic wand and declare across the board savings of whatever amount you need to make a promise sound plausible.

Richard Farmer

Crikey political commentator

The magic 2.5%. When in doubt just wave the magic wand and declare across the board savings of whatever amount you need to make a promise sound plausible. Hence this little gem from Treasurer Wayne Swan’s cost cuts statement:

A one‑off increase of 2.5 per cent to the efficiency dividend for most Commonwealth departments and agencies in the 2012‑13 financial year. This measure has no impact in 2011‑12 but is expected to reduce cash payments by $1.5 billion over the period 2012‑13 to 2014‑15;

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “The magic 2.5% in Swan’s Fiscal Outlook

  1. Michael James

    I note that the second most common cause of death is diseases of the heart and blood vessels. I wonder if this is the area that catches diabetes sufferers, given that disease’s predilection for inflicting significant circulatory system damage.

    Given the continued increase in the incidence in the rate of diabetes, I would expect these numbers to continue to rise.

  2. klewso

    Murdochracy :- “($?)100,000” worth of free positive PR?
    How would that be calculated – and how does it “compere” to the deal with “Abbott and his Alter Boys”? How do they put a monetary value on their treatment in a “free market”?
    Or, conversely, the value of the negative crap piled on the left, to make them look bad by comparison – thus influencing voter perception of “fitness to govern”?
    Then they’ll turn round and dismiss any suggestion that they have such “influence” – even though they can evaluate such a thing, when necessary :- as in “Charlotte Church’s case”?

  3. klewso

    Does that sort of “deal” qualify as a “political donation”?

  4. Barbara Boyle

    Diagnosis: Sick ( the Charlotte Church case)
    Predisposing causes:

    Fill in the blanks while congratulating yourselves on living in Australia where we are quarantined from such infection.

  5. Peter Fuller

    Assuming Charlotte Church’s evidence faithfully recalls the events, this represents a specific allegation of a protection racket. It validates Tom Watson’s question addressed to James Murdoch, when he put it to Murdoch that News was a mafia-like business.

  6. klewso

    I know it’s only an allegation and they deny it, so whose word do you trust? Hers?
    Or theirs, with that record of theirs – from partisan political patronage, and the sort of positive PR they dedicate to influence voter perception,
    – to denying they hacked,
    – to being caught and “discovering” it was a rogue operator,
    – subsequently “validating” that finding with a hand-crafted internal investigation,
    – to someone at another paper discovering that was crap, that it was indeed common practice,
    – to compromising the UK police force,
    – to sacking everyone at one paper while trying to save one “Murdoch favorite” (Brooks),
    – to eventually sacking her
    – to all those “retainers” they were paying “ex-staff”, especially those in “special” jobs
    – to the patronising unctuous performances “answering questions” in front of a parliamentary committee?

    Sure a close call, but call me a cock-eyed sentimentalist, but my money’s on the little one.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details