Nov 8, 2012

Coalition on APS politicisation: more front than …

Liberal claims about the politicisation of Treasury are rich coming from a party that politicised the entire public service when in government. But is there anything wrong with that?

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

It’s a little rich for the Coalition to be complaining about the politicisation of Treasury over its “leaked” analysis of Coalition policies. In fact, to use one of the more obscure Keatingisms, they’ve got more front than Mark Foys.


Leave a comment

21 thoughts on “Coalition on APS politicisation: more front than …

  1. Holden Back

    Said it before but the Lib/Nats view on this and many other policy areas is:

    “When WE do it, it’s funny”

  2. Jimmy

    The point of all this outrage is to provide a basis from which they can argue a case against having their policies costed by the treasury (or the new body whatever it’s name is) before the next election.

  3. GeeWizz

    I’m glad Treasury did costings on Lib Policies, can we now have costings on Labor Policies like the cost of moving their Carbon Tax to a European linked Carbon Scheme(currently about $10 Bucks a Ton vs $24 Bucks a Ton) while simultaneously paying the Carbon Tax welfare compensation?

  4. Jimmy

    Geewizz – If you are worried about the govt paying the compensation off a lower carbon price why aren’t you worried about the Libs paying it off $0 revenue and $3b in extra spending on a direct action policy?

    And the European price is lower now but the fixed price stays until 2015, what will the European price be then? (please remember in 2007 it was $40-$50 and in 2009 – 2011 it was between $20 & $25)

    Also given there is a restriction on how many foreign permits can be bought how does the Euro price effect the Australian price? (I’m not denying it does just want you to explian the exact correlation).

  5. shepherdmarilyn

    Govern as they see fit? That is what dictators do.

  6. Jimmy

    Marilyn – “Govern as they see fit? That is what dictators do.” No Marilyn that’s what all forms of govt do, the difference is in how those govts are appointed and removed.

    And being a dictator doesn’t mean you are going to be acting against the best wishes of the people you rule (although it seems to end up being the case), you can have a benevolent dictator.

  7. Holden Back

    ‘More front than Myers’ down here in Mexico

  8. shepherdmarilyn

    Govern how they see fit means they do what they like. Look at Howard with his serfchoices that went through both houses of parliament with less than 6 hours debate, the two wars Howard joined without a word of approval from the parliament or the people, the hideous anti-terrorism laws that were rammed through in a few hours.

    Governments in democracies do not govern as they see fit, they govern according to the rule of law and constitution.

  9. Jimmy

    Marilyn – “Govern how they see fit means they do what they like” Exactly, once a govt is elected they can do what they like, however as most govt’s want to get re-elected they want to ensure they take the people with them. Your example of Howard is a good one, he “Governed as he saw fit”, took IR reform too far and got voted out.
    If a government in a democracy didn’t “govern as they see fit” nothing would get done as they would have to have a public vote on everything.
    So the difference isn’t in how they govern but the fact that if, in a democracy how “they see fit” isn’t how the people see fit they will get voted out, in a dictatorship that doesn’t happen until there s a revolution.

  10. The Pav

    You’re out of luck Jummy,in your last line @4

    Geewhiz won’t explain anything. He’s fired off today’s talking point so back to his little black hole.

    No chance of a constructive debate there

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