Federal Budget 2025 'Reply' Thoughts?

Trying2SaveABuck on 27/03/2025 - 21:26
Last edited 27/03/2025 - 21:44

Peter Dutton, the Opposition Leader, has made several key promises in his budget reply speech as part of his campaign to become Australia's next prime minister. Here are the main points:

Gas Plan Specifics

Dutton's national gas plan includes auditing development-ready projects, particularly in southern states facing potential shortfalls. He also aims to halve approval times for these projects to expedite their development.

Gas Infrastructure Fund

The $1 billion critical gas infrastructure fund will not only increase pipeline and storage capacity but also enforce "use it or lose it" stipulations. This means gas drilling companies must actively develop their offshore gas fields or risk losing their rights to them.

Electricity Price

Dutton claims his plan will be 44% cheaper than Labor's, potentially saving Australians $263 billion. He argues that cheaper plans will lead to lower electricity prices as fewer costs are passed on to consumers.

Youth Mental Health Expansion

The expansion of the National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health, which Dutton established in 2014, aims to enhance support and services for young people struggling with mental health issues.

Support for Businesses

Small and medium businesses in critical industries will receive $12,000 to support apprentices and trainees, aiming to boost the workforce in essential sectors.

Legislative Priorities

On the first sitting day of the next parliament, Dutton promises to introduce four critical pieces of legislation focusing on energy, immigration, housing, health, and community safety.

Public Service Cuts

By reversing Labor's increase of 41,000 Canberra-based public servants, Dutton aims to save $7 billion annually and over $10 billion over the forward estimates.

Defence Funding

While specific details were not provided, Dutton teased a significant funding commitment to defence, emphasizing the importance of national security amid rising geopolitical tensions.

Spending Cuts

The Coalition plans to cut $10 billion in spending by eliminating what they consider "inflationary, ineffectual and imprudent spending." This includes ending the $20 billion rewiring the nation fund, Labor's $10 billion housing fund, and $16 billion in production tax credits for critical minerals and green hydrogen.

Support for Vulnerable Australians

Despite the spending cuts, Dutton reassured that funding for health, aged care, veterans' support, the NDIS, and defence would not be reduced. Additionally, he pledged $50 million for food charities helping vulnerable Australians.

Dutton's speech builds on previous election pledges, including allowing first home buyers to use up to $50,000 in super for their deposit and promising a major housing policy during the campaign. He positions himself as a strong and steady leader.

This is following on from the Budget post https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/899250?page=1#comment-1638…

Poll thoughts on the budget and who do you think presents a 'better' way forward for Australia with the looming election

Poll Options

  • 544
    Very Poor
  • 22
    Poor
  • 17
    Average
  • 23
    Good
  • 45
    Very Good
Financial Federal Budget

Comments

      • SBOB on 27/03/2025 - 22:32
        +6

        green energy should be able to compete on its own without huge government subsidies

        digging massive holes in Australia's wilderness, sending the dug up dirt off to China to be smelted using Australian coal for heat

        But your fine with any government subsidies that might apply to that second group of industries?

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 09:57
          +1

          No I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

          As for the second group of industries, I assume you mean mining, the government should have an equity stake in them (think Saudi Aramco as a model to copy for Australia's entire mineral wealth) but no subsidies or special treatment.

      • mitchalbrown on 28/03/2025 - 08:40
        +12

        You might wanna look at the subsidies the fossil fuels industries recieve… They rob us blind… The fossil fuels industry should be able to compete on it's own without huge government subsidies and incentives ( while destroying native habitats, digging massive holes in Australia's wilderness, sending the dug up dirt off to China to be smelted using Australian coal for heat).

        With renewable energy, the subsidies are naturally going to be higher because you are building out an entirely new network/infrastructure, this requires risk and incentives… when subsidising the fossil fuels industry… what are you paying for? the infrastructure is already there and has been for decades… where is the risk? the network has been in place forever and has been refined and proven… why do they need our money?

        The only thing those subsidies pay for is the golden parachutes into advisory roles at Woodside for politicians who have "paid their dues".

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:01
          -2

          You might wanna look at the subsidies the fossil fuels industries recieve… They rob us blind…

          You seem to know all about them so I'll let you elaborate and identify what subsidies those are.

          the infrastructure is already there and has been for decades…

          Is it? Where?

      • freefall101 on 28/03/2025 - 11:27
        +1

        because the gas industry is heavily owned by foreign corporations who have their own national interests to provide cheap and clean energy to their countries' people and businesses.

        ?

        Woodside is the largest natural gas producer in the world and their largest shareholder is AustralianSuper.

        It's not really that complicated, gas is a global market and they sell at market rates. We were too dumb to setup long term contracts, so we're paying market rates and apparently don't want to pay that much. Woodside, Origin, Santos, etc aren't acting in anyone's interest beyond their shareholders (which is the usual group of super funds, Vantage, etc who couldn't give two shits about anyone's national interests).

        Realistically, there's a small number of options. Force them to sell to us at below market rates or subsidise energy prices. Which we can do with literally any kind of market, and is usually the kind of thing that the Liberals are completely against (unless they need to win an election).

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 11:30
          +2

          Mimicking the Saudi Aramco model is the correct solution.

      • congo on 28/03/2025 - 19:37

        My young son thinks he looks like Voldemort :)
        There are some resemblances

      • greatlamp on 29/03/2025 - 10:54
        +2

        So-called green energy should be able to compete on its own without huge government subsidies and incentives

        Sure, in theory.

        In reality the country that supports the establishment of the industry will own it.

        Australia's car industry should have been able to survive without tax breaks. Now it doesn't exist, because in the real world other countries do offer these supports

        • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 11:06
          +3

          Australia's car industry didn't survive because in the 1980s the rich fat cats who own everything decided they were going to offshore everything to low labour price and low workers' rights countries to make themselves even richer. Labor and Liberal both supported and facilitated that process along with the selling off of taxpayer owned and paid for assets for cents on the dollar to similar groups of men.

  • Gdsamp on 27/03/2025 - 22:28

    Can we have Dr Jimbo instead

    • JIMB0 on 27/03/2025 - 22:40
      +8

      Hello

      • Snoozer on 28/03/2025 - 10:26
        +1

        Please present your budget for our review.

    • Mad Max on 27/03/2025 - 23:09

      they will both shaft farmers and producer all australians for the WHO 2030 agenda

      Corrected it for you.

      • ThithLord on 31/03/2025 - 09:24
        +1

        "Both sides r da same' is the laziest take a person can fall back to. You're exactly the type of voter the LNP love.

    • JimmyF on 28/03/2025 - 08:32
      -5

      Looking back over the last 20 years, it appears the UN are the ones that sold out the west countries……white replacement is happening at a scale that is unthinkable! People go on about Hilter, the UN and its policies for population Replacement Migration plan, make hilter look like tame.

      https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve…

      25 years ago the UN had a master plan to replace the white west, just look how the UK/EU is playing out at the moment. Australia is on that list, we're about 5 years behind the UK!

    • JIMB0 on 28/03/2025 - 13:53

      What's a globalist?

      • greatlamp on 29/03/2025 - 10:58
        +2

        A class of people with enough wealth that they are no longer tied to any nation

      • May4th on 30/03/2025 - 09:18
        -1

        as opposed to flat earthers perhaps?

  • Naigrabzo on 27/03/2025 - 22:57

    Mofo is not giving us better. No deal…. although…. I need an AI summary to check whether I will benefit. in that case DEAL!

  • Gunnar on 27/03/2025 - 22:59
    +57

    By reversing Labor's increase of 41,000 Canberra-based public servants, Dutton aims to save $7 billion annually and over $10 billion over the forward estimates.

    LOL except they cut staff and then hire contractors at close to double the rate

    • Mad Max on 27/03/2025 - 23:12
      +35

      they cut staff and then hire contractors their mates' contracting companies at close to double the rate

      Corrected it for you…

    • Russ on 28/03/2025 - 01:14
      +18

      close to double the rate

      Might be a bit more than that. Using the figures from one news article about a week ago (can't remember which), the AVERAGE price of the consultants was more than $350k EACH per year (I calculated it a week ago).

      Why the ALP aren't trumpeting that in their ads has me wondering if they're keeping their best "ammunition" for closer to the election.

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 28/03/2025 - 08:00
        +24

        Remember when Dutton hired a company for Manus Island security for $20million. They hadn't done any work in that field, and the head office was listed as a beach shack on Kangaroo Island.
        Open to correction if I've mis-remembered.

      • Mad Max on 28/03/2025 - 09:49
        -3

        LNP gives taxpayers money to their mates' contracting companies that then donate to the LNP.
        ALP lets the unions run a racket and take huge amounts of money from workers through superannuation funds that are all run by former union and former ALP people. The unions in turn give some of the money back to ALP to support their election campaign.
        They are all rotten.

        • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 11:39
          -1

          So why don't we have independent entity to audit government spending like a listed company ?

        • Russ on 29/03/2025 - 14:49
          +3

          the unions run a racket and take huge amounts of money from workers through superannuation funds

          Proof please. Since 2021, nobody can force an employee to use a particular super fund, it's 100% the employee's choice.

          Have a read of this ASIC page:
          https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/superannuation-fund…

          • ThithLord on 31/03/2025 - 09:25

            @Russ:

            Proof please.

            It's in his heeead, in his heeead Zombie Zombie Zom beh beh beh

        • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 16:43
          +3

          how are the best performing super funds "taking money from workers"?

          and how is there any similarity between unions donating to the ALP and the LNP funnelling money to consultancy firms to get required work done at quadruple the cost?

      • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 12:59
        -2

        The cost of a public Servant is a lot more than just their salary. $350k for a consultant that you have no obligations to with regards to super, equipment, HR etc etc while still more expensive isn't a terrible deal. I think you will find many consultants cost WAY more than that, many are well past $500k a year.

        • greatlamp on 29/03/2025 - 11:02
          +6

          It's still nowhere comparable. A private contractor needs to be paid 25% more than a full time employee, and the labour hire org needs to make 15%+ on top as well. These aren't specialist contractors, they are simply casual employees doing the same work as full time staff with less experience and no access to training

          Why would an organisation employ from labour hire then? Because they are forced to, they have caps on headcount so they aren't allowed to hire enough full time staff to do the work they are legislatively required to do. This is the LNP cost cutting plan in summary

          • Russ on 29/03/2025 - 14:54
            +1

            @greatlamp: And even after taking out those 25% and 15% cuts, that still leaves on average more than $250k as salary to the contract employee. Which is way more than the average public servant.

        • Shoocat on 29/03/2025 - 11:03
          +1

          It's only a decent deal for the taxpayer if the contractors are actually effective. The hidden cost with contractors is they will deliver the minimum required to deliver the terms of the contract, then jump ship to the next contract. There's no commitment to value for money, no care about long term success. It's a transaction plain and simple, and it shows in the quality of work.

          • TheMills on 29/03/2025 - 23:09

            @Shoocat: Govt. should actually ensure that the contractors ( person doing the work and not the agency ) are getting paid at the least 85% of what the Govt is spending. That way 35% will come back to the Govt. in the form of taxes.

            Most of the time the wage stealing agencies eat upto 40% commission in-between and pay only 25% taxes after adjusting all kinds of expenses in the name of business and not to forget all the dodgy GST claims on the top.

        • arkie0 on 30/03/2025 - 01:34

          Don't forget they need desks

    • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 11:44
      -2

      To be fair: removing a toxic+unproductive permanent employee is a PITA and cost as much (if not more) than contractors.

      It's actually easier to get hiring contractors right than hiring employee right. Don't bidders have to outline the KPIs and milestones to achieve ? If they don't achieve it, fire them.

      • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 11:56
        +5

        They contractors have no incentive to document and ensure the domain knowledge is within the company or department. I’ve worked in large companies with contractors and outsourcing and it doesn’t go well. You are assuming management is good at setting KPI’s and milestones and that they know how to write contracts properly. The reality is the contracts have holes you can drive a truck through and whatever permanents are left have the task of trying to make it work. Apparently I became the subject matter expert on a major contract because I was the one who was trying to define what it meant and make it work after everything was signed and “handed over”. If the issue is firing people then maybe spend a bit more time working out what people are like when you hire them.

        • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 14:06

          They contractors have no incentive to document and ensure the domain knowledge is within the company or department.

          True, which is why you write it into their contracts as a deliverable.

          I’ve worked in large companies with contractors and outsourcing and it doesn’t go well.

          yep I see this all the time in government especially. it comes from the first point where the outsourcer has better lawyers and smarter people writing the contracts than the department/company. The solution here is actually smarter people doing the contracts, which ironically means the need to hire external experts/consultants whose income depends on the department getting the best deal.

          • greatlamp on 29/03/2025 - 11:06
            -1

            @gromit:

            which is why you write it into their contracts as a deliverable.

            If the organisation had the expertise to do that they wouldn't be hiring contractors. This is just naive

        • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 14:37

          That one bad example but is it the norm? I'm in tech and we have lots of capable permanent employees. But for areas we do not have expertise, we hire contractors working along with our permanent employees:
          1. The project requires lots of efforts initially but if done, the maintenance will require less people
          2. Per employee can gain skills while working with contractors. In fact, as employee, I often find working with contractors useful. They are smart, and updated with latest tools/tech.

  • plmko on 28/03/2025 - 00:04
    +34

    Man whenever you hear the Coalition talk "cheaper" and "saving" it's just got NBN vibe levels of cringe.

    • jv on 28/03/2025 - 01:02
      -8

      NBN vibe levels of cringe

      I'm happy paying $85 per month for 250/100 speeds compared to the $50 per month i was paying for ADSL 2 and another $50 for Telstra home phone before NBN.

      I'm more concerned with the ridiculous food, utilities, insurance, home interest rates, rental fee price rises we've had in the last two years with zero pay increases for most people.

      • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 08:57
        +23

        Which you would've gotten years earlier for cheaper, and without costing as many taxpayer dollars if they had gone with the original Labor plan. Instead of buying a tonne of century old copper wiring to implement crappy FTTN and then giving up and going with the original fibre plan after already blowing out the budget.

        • jv on 28/03/2025 - 08:58
          -7

          for cheaper

          proof?

          • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 10:08
            +19

            @jv: I can't tell if you're being genuine, the NBN disaster has been widely documented for years.

            Here's the first few results, you have access to the internet if you want to do further reading:
            * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/10/secret-fi…
            * https://theconversation.com/the-nbn-why-its-slow-expensive-a…
            * https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansar…

              • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 10:46
                +12

                @jv: The price floor in the market would be lower due to a lower wholesale cost (NBN doesn't aim to make a profit so the savings wouldn't just be profit margin).
                Your specific plan could technically be the same price, but it likely wouldn't be since the price won't be competitive. And you could just, y'know, pick a cheaper plan.

                I'm unsure why you're asking me to do simple deductions for you, are you just being facetious?

                • EBC on 28/03/2025 - 12:33
                  +17

                  @Rysta: JV's argument is always "yes, we are eating a s*** sandwich, but you can't prove the other option was ham"

                  • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 14:40
                    -1

                    @EBC: and in all fairness he is correct. claiming it would have been better is giving a whole lot of credit to politicians with a track record of over promising, under delivering and going way over budget. This isn't to say the LNP is better, basically whichever we had gone the only thing you can be sure of is we would be screwed either with lack of speed or massive cost blowouts.

    • bigbadboogieman on 28/03/2025 - 13:41
      +4

      NBN, Energy Market, Gas Exports, you name it.
      Anything the light LNP or Private Equity touches goes to shit.

    • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 03:01
      +2

      $43 per week (for the average earner)* That's $2,200 per annum jv. I thought you'd be getting the max back being an OzBargainer, we all earn over $200k

      • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 08:29
        +2

        Last I saw it was $260 or so a year, where has $43 a week come from?

        • jv on 28/03/2025 - 09:04
          +1

          where has $43 a week come from?

          SpainKing's orifice….😁

          • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 16:02

            @jv: You're not meant to be in there

        • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 16:00
          -1

          The Treasury website
          7 News website (a bit more critical of the policy)
          Before everyone comes out and says that's combining the new tax cuts with their previous ones, I know. jv never specified which tax cuts he was talking about, so it can be assumed he's talking about all of them. I also feel it's disingenuous to completely disregard the work the party have already done regarding taxes

          • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 16:49

            @SpainKing: Weren't the previous tax cuts the liberals idea? This post is also about this budget, not things prior.

            • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 17:31

              @brendanm: I don't think you can attribute tax cuts as a concept to any particular political party, the rate was reduced from 19% to 16% up to $48,000 and and from 32.5% to 30% for earnings above that up to $135,000 (up from $120,000). Was this the original plan the Liberals had in mind?

              Everyone in the other thread seems to be talking about what happened over the current term, why is it not allowed in this thread? I still see people talking about the NBN and plenty of other things the parties did years ago here too. All l I did was given a recent rate cut and combine it with the next planned rate cut to show that cost of living relief is being given, instead of reducing it down to one part of one policy like jv did

              • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 17:41
                +1

                @SpainKing: I'm pretty sure that tax cut was a liberal thing. Just to be clear I'm not voting for either of them.

                The current policy is $260 a year. What they did 2 years ago doesn't really have anything to do with this policy.

                • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 18:40
                  -1

                  @brendanm: To my understanding, the Liberals' version was going to be disproportionately beneficial for the top end of town compared to Labor's redesigned tax cuts. They would remove the 37% bracket for earnings over $120,000/year and everyone would pay 30% tax (down from 32.5%) between $45k and $200k . No benefit for people earning below $45,000 (most affected by the CoL crisis), $875 for an $80,000 wage and $9,075 for someone earning $200k

                  The current policy is $268 a year, increased to $536 the next year. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't kick either out of bed for eating crackers

                  I disagree it has nothing to do with this policy. Both are tax cuts, and both were designed with alleviating the cost of living crisis in mind. This can be seen as a continuation of the cost of living relief the Labor government has been giving people. For jv to disregard measures taken only 2 years ago so he can complain his taxes aren't going down enough in the next two years is reductive. I'm just surprised he hasn't found a way to say it was Dan Andrew's fault

                  • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 19:09

                    @SpainKing: One was in the past, and has nothing to do with the tax cuts that have been announced, you may as well mention tax policy from 50 years ago. $260 is basically nothing, it's just a vote buying exercise, same as the liberals "50% off fuel excise" that will just result in fuel price jacking.

                    • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 19:43
                      -1

                      @brendanm: In was in the past 2 years, not 50 years ago. Both aimed at tackling the same issue (cost of living), and it's the same government proposing it, so there are definitely parallels. I understand you want to focus on the new changes in the budgets announced, but the most recent ones can still be considered when the context of jv's comment is about cost of living and how Albanese has done nothing to help him personally (even stating "the past 2 years")

                      They are small amounts, but everyone would be up in arms if the tax was being raised from 16% back to 18%. The average motorist would be saving ~$6.25 per week with the fuel excise cut which is for 12 months, whereas the tax cut is a 12 month change which saves ~$6.14 on average, then ~$12.29 permanently each year thereafter until rates are changed again

                      If $268 is basically nothing to you I'm sure there are plenty of people here that would be happy to have you donate it to them

                      Anyway, we're arguing semantics, how about we both call it a day and agree to disagree?

                      • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 19:59
                        +1

                        @SpainKing: It's not semantics, the thread is literally about this budget, JV was referring to this round of tax cuts, as the others are in the past.

                        If $268 is basically nothing to you I'm sure there are plenty of people here that would be happy to have you donate it to them

                        Then they can work for it. $6 a week buys absolutely nothing with how out of control prices are.

      • jv on 28/03/2025 - 09:02
        +4

        $43 per week (for the average earner)

        #fakenews

        On the government's website:

        "Based on your annual taxable income, you will receive a new tax cut of $268 in 2026–27"

        https://budget.gov.au/content/calculator.htm#:~:text=Based%2….

        That is 73 cents per day, or $5.15 per week.

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:07
          +2

          73 cents per day wouldn't even feed a World Vision sponsor child in the early 2000s

    • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 08:53
      +12

      Note that this inflation was caused by money printed before labor was elected.

      Financial mismanagement doesn't show its effects immediately.

      • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 09:50
        +4

        They all agreed to print that money. They are all idiots, don't excuse them.

        • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 09:57
          +2

          I know and won't be voting for the major parties. Just implying that you shouldn't preference LNP over Labor for something that happened while LNP was in charge.

      • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:08

        Where do you think the majority of the money supply (and the majority of inflation) comes from?

        Hint: 95% of Australia's money supply is created out of thin air by commercial banks every time they issue loans/mortgages.

        • brendanm on 28/03/2025 - 16:52

          At least there is still value attributed to it. Jobkeeper, double dole etc were just money for absolutely nothing, zero value.

      • Snoozer on 28/03/2025 - 10:37
        +3

        Exactly, this problem was created during the covid era, when Scott Morrison was busy handing out money to all his friends in big business.

        • jv on 28/03/2025 - 10:55
          +1

          when Scott Morrison was busy handing out money

          Most small businesses would have collapsed without that money as the government wasn't allowing them to work…

          Our ecomony would have gone to sh1⊥ with everyone being on the dole when the restrictions were eased later…

          • Beef jerky time on 28/03/2025 - 12:45
            +4

            @jv: There were some companies that needed it and a shitload that didn't, but because the LNP believe in giving public money to their friends, they just gave billions away with no oversight and no clawback (see Harvey Norman). Plenty of companies handed out fat bonuses to their execs after receiving jobkeeper money.

            If you want to be upset about your cost of living, you need to place the blame squarely at the last government's feet because they caused it. Take your blinkers off.

            • jv on 28/03/2025 - 12:47
              +2

              @Beef jerky time:

              There were some companies that needed

              I'm talking about small business in Australia, not a few large companies. There are 2.5 million in Australia and keep lots of people employed and off social security…

              • Beef jerky time on 28/03/2025 - 13:06
                -1

                @jv: Lots of small companies didn't need it either, but there were absolutely no checks. Also, lots of part time employees who only worked a few hours a week received more money than they did from their work. Then they pumped money into an already hot construction market and paid people to build and renovate, which just ruined the whole sector. Also, they allowed people to withdraw money from super (stupid), most of whom went and bought crap with it. Dumping excess billions into the system was the problem.

                off social security

                What does this even mean? That's entirely the point of social security. But I assume you think it's different because your favourite football team were the ones handing out the money rather than getting from that socialist Centerlink platform, or Labor who you very clearly hate.

                Seriously, wake up and use some logic.

                • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:11
                  +1

                  @Beef jerky time:

                  Lots of small companies didn't need it either

                  Lots did, as they were not allowed to trade…

                  • Beef jerky time on 28/03/2025 - 13:13

                    @jv: This is the same non-answer you tried to justify the previous response with. Maybe try turning Sky "News" off and going outside.

                • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:12

                  @Beef jerky time:

                  That's entirely the point of social security.

                  And if their businesses collapsed, they would have stayed on social security, plus these business would no longer be in the economy later…

                  • Beef jerky time on 28/03/2025 - 13:26

                    @jv: Some would have. Lots wouldn't have. Some would have had a poor year but not gone broke. Lots of businesses were insulated from the effects because they didn't have in-person transactions and their employees could work from home (including the company I work for).

                    Lots of money was handed out unnecessarily which leads to inflation. See how this works?

                    • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:27

                      @Beef jerky time:

                      Some would have. Lots wouldn't have.

                      Or the other way around… As most could no longer work…

                      • Beef jerky time on 28/03/2025 - 13:31

                        @jv: Ok, now you're just being dumb. But thanks for highlighting why an election of a very average Labor Prime Minister vs. a fascist ex-cop is considered close.

          • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 13:18

            @jv: Maybe the government could have just not shuttered the economy. Would've been cheaper.

            • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:24

              @tenpercent:

              Maybe the government could have just not shuttered the economy.

              Yep, then there would not have been any need for handouts…

              Hindsight is great…

              What's a few hundred thousand extra deaths, right???

              • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 13:52

                @jv:

                What's a few hundred thousand extra deaths

                It's fiction generated by garbage-in garbage-out modelling.

                Hindsight is great…

                Hindsight is great, but unnecessary in this instance. The WHO advised against lockdowns in 2020.

                Dr. Margaret Harris from the WHO insisted that lockdowns should not be the primary approach, stating that "We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus." Additionally, Dr. David Nabarro, a WHO envoy, suggested that lockdowns should be treated as a last resort due to their severe economic impact on poor communities.

                • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:53

                  @tenpercent:

                  It's fiction generated by garbage-in garbage-out modelling.

                  no it's not.

                  • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 13:54
                    +1

                    @jv:

                    What's a few hundred thousand extra deaths

                    Prove it.

                    • jv on 28/03/2025 - 13:57

                      @tenpercent:

                      Prove it.

                      They were prevented due to the lockdowns.

                      Except for Victoria where Dan was hiring security that was bonking covid infected tourists and then in the evening delivered food for Uber.

                      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-per-year…

                      • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:05

                        @jv: So you make a claim about preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths in Australia but you have no way to prove it? By the standard I could say the lockdowns prevented 0 deaths or 46 million deaths in Australia. And it would be equally ludicrous.

                        Excelpt for Victoria

                        I think you might be exagerating just a wee bit.

                        According to Table 2, Victoria only had 382 excess deaths in 2020 and 2782 in 2021.

                        • jv on 28/03/2025 - 14:18
                          -1

                          @tenpercent:

                          I think you might be exagerating just a wee bit.

                          Nope

                          • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:21
                            +1

                            @jv: Yep.

                            According to Table 2, Victoria only had 382 excess deaths in 2020 and 2782 in 2021.

                            • jv on 28/03/2025 - 14:25
                              -2

                              @tenpercent: Thanks to Dan…

                              • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:33
                                +1

                                @jv: Are you blaming Dan for your exagerating? He's responsible for a lot of bad things, but not that.

                                "hundreds of thousands" is between 31 and 316 times bigger than 3162
                                So you are indeed exagerating.

                • Parentheses on 29/03/2025 - 02:47

                  @tenpercent: I love how cookers simultaneously believe that WHO is leading some sort of secret globalist agenda, but also that we didn't follow WHO's recommendations when we should have.

                  WHO generally recommended keeping things up and running because the cost to places not nearly as well off as Australia would be worse than the impact of COVID on Australia. We basically caused excess death through economic turmoil to the 3rd world countries relying on income we generate in exchange for fewer deaths here. WHO looks at the global impact, Australian policy only really cares about Australia. And call me selfish, but I'm entirely fine with that trade. The poor communities WHO is talking about aren't the relatively LOADED poor people here in Australia.

  • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 03:52
    +26

    Dutton's national gas plan includes auditing development-ready projects, particularly in southern states facing potential shortfalls. He also aims to halve approval times for these projects to expedite their development

    Rushing through mining company approval which will ensure less scrutiny and more unfavourable terms for Australia as a whole, what a new and creative idea from the Liberals.

    The $1 billion critical gas infrastructure fund will not only increase pipeline and storage capacity but also enforce "use it or lose it" stipulations. This means gas drilling companies must actively develop their offshore gas fields or risk losing their rights to them.

    More fossil fuel extraction to keep the mining companies happy, how bold

    Dutton claims his plan will be 44% cheaper than Labor's, potentially saving Australians $263 billion. He argues that cheaper plans will lead to lower electricity prices as fewer costs are passed on to consumers.

    Cheaper until we have to transition to green energy (after switching to hydrogen and nuclear of course). I'm not hesitant to support them after the cost of their cheaper, faster NBN rollout ended up double what was forecast, slow, and ultimately transitioned to fibre (the original plan under Labor) anyway. It's not like money would've been saved going straight to fibre instead of dicking around with copper and old TV cables. (Interestingly, the Coalition received documents in 2013 that indicated Labor's plan would actually cost $10 billion less than originally forecast)

    The expansion of the National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health, which Dutton established in 2014, aims to enhance support and services for young people struggling with mental health issues.

    Sounds good actually, they'll need it if Dutton gets in

    Small and medium businesses in critical industries will receive $12,000 to support apprentices and trainees, aiming to boost the workforce in essential sectors

    No way it will be taken advantage of like the COVID payments. Might actually work out

    By reversing Labor's increase of 41,000 Canberra-based public servants, Dutton aims to save $7 billion annually and over $10 billion over the forward estimates

    Gunnar and Russ above covered this

    While specific details were not provided, Dutton teased a significant funding commitment to defence, emphasizing the importance of national security amid rising geopolitical tensions.

    Are we protecting ourselves against China, or the country putting tariffs on us for aluminium and steel that makes us buy their weapons? I'm sure they'll help us if China ever actually invaded, just like they did when they said they'd step in to help Ukraine if they joined NATO. Probably best to keep poking the bear and encouraging them to make a move

    The Coalition plans to cut $10 billion in spending by eliminating what they consider "inflationary, ineffectual and imprudent spending." This includes ending the $20 billion rewiring the nation fund, Labor's $10 billion housing fund, and $16 billion in production tax credits for critical minerals and green hydrogen

    Oh excellent, the LNP has never engaged in inflationary, ineffectual or imprudent spending before, they're the "strong economic managers". More money for mining companies too, how audacious

    I'm done being snarky. I like the food charity stuff, I don't like him letting first home buyers (mostly young people) take up to $50,000 out of their super when it still has the most earning potential through compound interest. It will increase the burden on the system when those people get old and have significantly less money to take care of/sustain themselves. It's short sighted (unlike Dutton with his fake glasses). Whoops, I was snarky again. Oh well, I'm sure there won't be any promises broken after election time

  • AustriaBargain on 28/03/2025 - 04:04
    +3

    Even Dutton doesn't think he's going to win. Why bother with a proper reply at all they must think.

  • morse on 28/03/2025 - 05:45
    +1

    Public service cuts

    What does shrinking the public service mean at a federal level?

    • ATO - cuts here will make tax evasion easier (seems short sighted)
    • Immigration - Remember when it was taking months to a year to get a passport?
    • NDIS - It currently takes months to a year to get an NDIS access request and planning meeting turned around for anyone who doesn’t apply from hospital (and even from hospital there are delays). Do we want this to be slower?
    • border force - I guess if there’s less workforce intercepting drugs it will be good for one of Australia’s economies.
    • cybersecurity- excellent news for for pedos, fraudsters, hackers etc.
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join