Who will be Prime Minister?

[mick]

How on earth can anyone support a man for Prime Minister when that man says he not only doesn't trust the Treasury he will be in charge of, but says they don't understand his policies?

What's he going to do - sack all the Treasury?

A recipe for stability?

I think we're now seeing the real Tony.

I think what he is saying he no longer believes the public service is politically neutral.

[redandblack]

mick, surely even the most rabid Abbott supporter must be aghast at this.

An incoming PM doesn't trust the Public Service! How is he going to govern? Is he going to outsource the Treasury to Horvaths Accountants!

There is another, somewhat more believable interpretation. His policies won't stand the scrutiny of proper costings. They were cobbled together and the savings just aren't there.

Can you imagine the media if it was Gillard following that path.

It will come down to seat numbers, but if the seat count finishes roughly even, Abbott's in strife over this.

He won't answer questions, always walks out of his press conferences and isn't looking very Prime Ministerial.

[JohnnyG]

How on earth can anyone support a man for Prime Minister when that man says he not only doesn't trust the Treasury he will be in charge of, but says they don't understand his policies?

What's he going to do - sack all the Treasury?

A recipe for stability?

I think we're now seeing the real Tony.

I think what he is saying he no longer believes the public service is politically neutral.

.... and is he saying that the Accounting firm that checked his costings is politically neutral?

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Wow! This poll is as tight as last Saturdays...

I would have said Gillard yesterday, but after seeing how strongly the people who elected the independents want Abbott I'll back him now. Big call for an independent to turn around and go against his constituents...

Mind you Katter is as big a fruit loop as Peter Lewis and barnaby Joyce rolled into one!

[Sojourner]

Katter in coalition with the Labor Party who likewise are in coalition with the Greens, will be interesting to see how that all works out - will sell plenty of papers and news media until the double dissaloution has been finalised!

In essence I dont see how it can work either way, Abbot wont have a hope of governing with a Greens - Labor dominated Senate. Gillard is going to struggle to keep extreme right wing elements under her control whilst having to work around left wing based policy to pacify the Greens.

[Psyber]

When has the public service ever been neutral - it has a vested interest in supporting the party that will expand the public service and enhance promotion prospects.
That was obvious when I met my wife, who was in charge of Duplicate Cheques in what was then the DSS [now Centrelink.]
She was a strong ALP supporter at that time, and admitted it was for that reason as well as because of her family background.

[Squawk]

mick, surely even the most rabid Abbott supporter must be aghast at this.

An incoming PM doesn't trust the Public Service! How is he going to govern? Is he going to outsource the Treasury to Horvaths Accountants!

There is another, somewhat more believable interpretation. His policies won't stand the scrutiny of proper costings. They were cobbled together and the savings just aren't there.

Can you imagine the media if it was Gillard following that path.

It will come down to seat numbers, but if the seat count finishes roughly even, Abbott's in strife over this.

He won't answer questions, always walks out of his press conferences and isn't looking very Prime Ministerial.

R&B - it's not quite as simple as this.
In the Cwlth (unlike here unfortunately), the Charter of Budget Honesty applies during election campaign periods. It provides a mechansim for the Opposition to have their policies costed following approval from the Prime Minister. The PM's Office facilitates these reqests.
The leak may not have come from Treasury and is arguably more likely to have come from the PM's Office. The requests are usually overseen by the PMO and Treasury for some days prior to the outcomes being released. It's likely that Abbott wants to source of the leak identified (and rectified) so as not to compromise his request process. At the end of the day, no party will argue with costings provided by Treasury because they ultimately frame the budget process.

It would be good if SA had a Charter of Budget Honesty and indeed we discussed similar such arrangements during the state election process. A single provider (Treasury) of costings means there can be little argument about veracity or accuracy, and any argument is thus reduced to the bare numbers rather than the credibility of the costing source.

Perhaps the Murdoch Media is not reporting the full story and only focussing on isolated grabs?

[redandblack]

As always, you've put up a good factual summary, Squawk, but we're not now in an election campaign and I'm sure you would see a problem with Abbott's approach here.

he doesn't trust the Treasury (despite the fact the LNP appointed Ken Henry).

this is unprecedented for a potential incoming PM. What message does that send about stability in government, apart from the obvious political nonsense of his approach.

I liked your Murdoch reference. I looked at the "Tiser today to see how their headline would wriggle out of this blunder.

I wasn't disappointed.


Their electors say

MAKE ABBOTT PM

And to think I'm trying to suggest Murdoch is pro-Abbott

[Squawk]

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/ABFBC1B1DB8B00D6CA257433000419B9

Part 8—Costing of election commitments



29 Requests for costing of election commitments

(1) During the caretaker period for a general election:

(a) the Prime Minister may request the responsible Secretaries to prepare costings of publicly announced Government policies; and
(b) the Leader of the Opposition may, subject to subclause (4), request the responsible Secretaries to prepare costings of publicly announced Opposition policies.
(2) A request is to:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) outline fully the policy to be costed, giving relevant details; and

(c) state the purpose or intention of the policy.

(3) A request by the Prime Minister is to be given to the responsible Secretaries.

(4) A request by the Leader of the Opposition is to be given to the Prime Minister, who may then agree to refer it to the responsible Secretaries. The responsible Secretaries are not obliged or authorised to take any action in relation to the request unless the Prime Minister has referred the request to them.

(5) The Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition may, at any time, withdraw a request that he or she has made. A withdrawal by the Prime Minister is to be by notice in writing given to the responsible Secretaries. A withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition is to be by notice in writing given to the Prime Minister, who is to notify the responsible Secretaries of the withdrawal.

30 How policy costings are to be prepared

(1) The responsible Secretaries may, jointly, issue written guidelines recommending approaches or methods to be used in the preparation of policy costings.

(2) In preparing policy costings:

(a) the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury is responsible for costing aspects of policies affecting revenue; and

(b) the Secretary to the Department of Finance is responsible for costing aspects of policies that affect government outlays and expenses.

(3) If a responsible Secretary needs more information to cost aspects of a policy, he or she is, in writing, to ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (as the case requires) for that information.

31 Public release of policy costings

(1) As soon as practicable after a policy costing request has been made and before polling day for the election, either or both of the responsible Secretaries are to publicly release a costing of the policy.Note 1: Whether a costing has to be released by either or both of the responsible Secretaries depends on the division of responsibilities set out in subclause 30(2).

Note 2: The obligation in this subclause does not apply to a request that has been withdrawn under subclause 29(4).

(2) If a responsible Secretary does not have sufficient information, or has not had sufficient time, to prepare and publicly release a policy costing before polling day for the election, the Secretary is to publicly release a statement to that effect before that day.

(3) A responsible Secretary is not obliged or authorised to take any further action in relation to a policy costing request on or after polling day for the election.

32 Commonwealth bodies to provide information to help prepare report

(1) To help a responsible Secretary to prepare aspects of a policy costing for which he or she is responsible, he or she may request a Commonwealth body to provide information.

(2) A Commonwealth body is to comply with a request in time to allow the information to be taken into account in the preparation of the policy costing, unless it is not practicable for the body to do so. The body does not have to provide information if doing so would contravene another law of the Commonwealth.

[Wedgie]

When has the public service ever been neutral - it has a vested interest in supporting the party that will expand the public service and enhance promotion prospects.
That was obvious when I met my wife, who was in charge of Duplicate Cheques in what was then the DSS [now Centrelink.]
She was a strong ALP supporter at that time, and admitted it was for that reason as well as because of her family background.

Psyber, things have changed a hell of a lot since those archaic days.

[am Bays]

As always, you've put up a good factual summary, Squawk, but we're not now in an election campaign and I'm sure you would see a problem with Abbott's approach here.

he doesn't trust the Treasury (despite the fact the LNP appointed Ken Henry).

this is unprecedented for a potential incoming PM. What message does that send about stability in government, apart from the obvious political nonsense of his approach.

I liked your Murdoch reference. I looked at the "Tiser today to see how their headline would wriggle out of this blunder.

I wasn't disappointed.


Their electors say

MAKE ABBOTT PM

And to think I'm trying to suggest Murdoch is pro-Abbott

But as you and i both know were are still in caretaker mode as we were a on Friday August 20. We will remin in caretake mode until the declaration of teh polls and the sweraining in of the next PM. So Abbotts concerns are well founded.

I take it that you are heartened by the swing to Beavis in Brisbane on the back of postals.

[Psyber]

When has the public service ever been neutral - it has a vested interest in supporting the party that will expand the public service and enhance promotion prospects.
That was obvious when I met my wife, who was in charge of Duplicate Cheques in what was then the DSS [now Centrelink.]
She was a strong ALP supporter at that time, and admitted it was for that reason as well as because of her family background.

Psyber, things have changed a hell of a lot since those archaic days.

Not on the evidence of my recent dealings with the bureaucracy over health issues.
But I'll look at any case you can make.

[Squawk]

we're not now in an election campaign

One subtle difference - we are still in caretaker period.

http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/charter-of-budget-honesty/index.html#part3

Charter of Budget Honesty - Costing Election Commitments
Guidelines issued jointly by the Secretaries to the Departments of the Treasury and of Finance and Deregulation 2010.

Public Release of Costings
The Charter, under Clause 31, outlines the requirements for the public release of policy costings. The Charter requires the relevant Secretary to publicly release a costing as soon as practicable after the request is received and before polling day. If the costing cannot be undertaken before polling day, either due to insufficient information or time constraints, the relevant Secretary is to publicly release a statement to that effect. Secretaries are not obliged or authorised to take any further action in relation to a policy costing request on or after polling day.

Requests for Costings - Procedures and Standards
Further to Part 1, requests for costings can be made during the Caretaker Period prior to a general election. They must be made by either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition through the Prime Minister. The Secretaries are not obliged to take any action on requests unless these are received through the Prime Minister.

Informing Parties of the Public Release of Costing and Delivery of Costing Reports
The offices of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be advised at least four business hours in advance of the expected public release time of all costings, but not of the content of the reports. The requesting party will also be informed of the hand delivery arrangements and public release approximately one hour prior to the release. When a costing is to be released, hard copy costing reports will be provided to the Parliament House offices of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at approximately the same time, with the costing provided to the requesting party first. Shortly after the delivery of the document, costings will be publicly released to the press and on the joint Finance‑Treasury election costings website. As noted in Part 2 (Page 4), the Secretaries will aim to produce a written report that provides a full explanation of the costing. However, a further statement may be issued if the Secretaries judge that further clarification of a costing and the methods used is required.


My understanding was that the caretaker PM is currently seeking advice in relation to the caretaker provisions in relation to a number of matters, given (unusually) the caretaker period has extended past polling day. This includes a range of requests from the independents to be provided with advice and support by the public service. (Note that the provisions I've quoted only apply to the PM and the Leader of the Opposition. So for example, the Greens cant get their policies costed by Treasury).

All in all, you may be right R&B - I'm simply suggesting that the processes are actually quite clear, quite robust and we are in unusual circumstances. And Tony Abbott is understandably peeved that despite what is outlined above (in my concise quoting but I've provided the links to the full documents), there was a leak. In my own experience, I'd say it is more likely that the leak was a political one rather than a public service one, and I can't understand why a presiding govt wouldn't want the AFP to investigate it. Unless, they knew what the findings of the investigation might be.

[JohnnyG]

Anyway, what's wrong with leaks? ..... as long as the leaks are accurate

[redandblack]

Squawk, thanks for that, but I'm a bit cynical about Tony's sudden concern for leaks from Treasury.

It must be different now that Godwin Grech has departed

The fact remains that Gillard has said she's be happy to have her policies costed, subject to advice about the caretaker conventions (which means she's taken note of your points).

Meanwhile, Andrew Robb has said that Horvaths had the Lib costings for two months!

aB, I am heartened, but a lifetime of watching close election counts makes me pessimistic that Labor will win, even though my psephological opinion would be that he should

My summary remains:

If Labor hold Corangamite and/or win Brisbane, they'll form government.

If they lose both, Tony will do so.

In any event, it's as close as you could get.

[Wedgie]

When has the public service ever been neutral - it has a vested interest in supporting the party that will expand the public service and enhance promotion prospects.
That was obvious when I met my wife, who was in charge of Duplicate Cheques in what was then the DSS [now Centrelink.]
She was a strong ALP supporter at that time, and admitted it was for that reason as well as because of her family background.

Psyber, things have changed a hell of a lot since those archaic days.

Not on the evidence of my recent dealings with the bureaucracy over health issues.
But I'll look at any case you can make.

Now you're talking about recent dealings, I was talking about DSS/Centrelink who haven't dealt with duplicate cheques this century.
In the 80s (and prior) there was a big difference in how a Federal Dept was run depending on who was in power, I was always in a wuandry as to vote for what was better for me personally (Labor) or what was better for the country usually (Libs).
I can tell you for quite a long time (and probably since the days cheques were used) the difference these days is virtually non existent, sure there are different policies that need to be implemented but that's about it.
Federal Departments don't sway either way as they may have in he past. It would come down more to individuals in those departments these days and as per usual Im sure you've only dealt with those that suit your argument.

I do understand Abbots reluctance to deal wih the Treasury due to the prior leak but Im sure that would have been a result of an unscrupulous individual or small group, not the organisation as a whole.

I giggle at the paranoia you and r&b both display at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[Wedgie]

Odds have changed again:

Labor favs again at $1.85
Libs $1.90

[redandblack]

Glad we amuse you, mate, but that's not too difficult

[ca]

Squawk, thanks for that, but I'm a bit cynical about Tony's sudden concern for leaks from Treasury.

It must be different now that Godwin Grech has departed

The fact remains that Gillard has said she's be happy to have her policies costed, subject to advice about the caretaker conventions (which means she's taken note of your points).

Meanwhile, Andrew Robb has said that Horvaths had the Lib costings for two months!

aB, I am heartened, but a lifetime of watching close election counts makes me pessimistic that Labor will win, even though my psephological opinion would be that he should

My summary remains:

If Labor hold Corangamite and/or win Brisbane, they'll form government.

If they lose both, Tony will do so.

In any event, it's as close as you could get.

Labor will hold Corangamite.

[bulldogproud2]

[quote="Squawk[All in all, you may be right R&B - I'm simply suggesting that the processes are actually quite clear, quite robust and we are in unusual circumstances. And Tony Abbott is understandably peeved that despite what is outlined above (in my concise quoting but I've provided the links to the full documents), there was a leak. In my own experience, I'd say it is more likely that the leak was a political one rather than a public service one, and I can't understand why a presiding govt wouldn't want the AFP to investigate it. Unless, they knew what the findings of the investigation might be. [/quote]

Squawk, the real concern is why is Tony Abbott not arranging for an AFP investigation? It is not up to Julia Gillard to do so. It is more than likely that there never was any leak (except from the Liberal Party) and he is well and truly aware of this. He has simply refused to put his costings in for proper scrutiny, preferring instead to put them through an accounting firm that donates heavily to the Liberal Party coffers.
As for the leak: shades of Godwin Grech and Senator Abetz
As for the lack of costings scrutiny: Very poor form by Tony Abbott

Cheers