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

    • MrThing on 28/03/2025 - 07:38
      +11

      NDIS should be cut all together… it costs more than medicare and only support 660k people

      • Bruceflix on 28/03/2025 - 08:14
        +4

        But then I can't go to a facebook group to find a Dr that will give a particular diagnosis for my kids so I can get lots of free stuff.

      • Gunnar on 28/03/2025 - 08:40
        +10

        State and federal spending on disability supports are too high!

        I got a 4 point plan:
        1. Let’s create a scheme for the market to deal with this
        2. Now let’s commoditise some of our most vulnerable members of our population as part of this scheme
        3. So we can make it lucrative, let’s make it really lucrative for any idiot to have a business to support the people.
        4. Screw point 3, let’s make it so lucrative, approx 20% of the scheme goes to organised crime

        • MrThing on 28/03/2025 - 08:55
          +1
          1. lets create this huge demand that it becomes our highest job and economic growth sector, but actually doesn't deliver any real productivity or economic boost to the country
        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:12
          -1

          Some search terms to look into: Social Impact Investing, Social Impact Bonds

      • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 08:51

        NDIS is a jobs program, its one of the main reasons we aren't in a full blown recession at the moment. When the private market isn't hiring enough, sometimes the government makes up jobs to keep money circulating.

        • MrThing on 28/03/2025 - 08:56
          +3

          well firstly the NDIS IS the private market thats the whole issue with it and secondly the government is just the unlimited piggy bank the NDIS is sucking dry

          I'm sure the 40odd billion dollars the NDIS is Currently could be far better spend elsewhere which could boost jobs or produce an industry which helps more Australians. The greens could finally get their fully funded dental healthcare and fully funded GP clinics if we just closed down the NDIS

          we survived up until 2013 with no NDIS, why do we need it now? now all of a sudden the rates of diagnosis for conditions like ADHD are through the roof, no surprises but, DAT NDIS MONEY is so so sweet

      • morse on 29/03/2025 - 11:14

        Prior to NDIS there were other schemes that provided similar. It is however open to exploitation. There really does need to be something for many of the people on NDIS. Where it’s gone wrong is the same people prescribing plans then servicing them. There’s also a lot of support coordinators who have no idea what they are doing. Without NDIS (or similar) the hospitals will pretty much have people with severe disabilities living there. It’s already a problem for some clients who are too aggressive for their support workers etc. But if there was nothing there would be multiple wards full of people with disability. NDIS provides things like wheelchairs, mattresses that stop people getting pressure injuries, workers to ensure people can empty their bowels in the morning (some people with spinal cord injury literally need someone to physically assist or they cannot empty their bowels). The vast majority of participants however have autism or intellectual disability - this is where it gets very murky around what supports are really helpful or necessary. Prior to NDIS heaps of people were missing out on things that help people to be functioning members of the community. But there’s also those who are adding an autism diagnosis to ADHD simply to get funding for supports. (You can’t get NDIS for ADHD alone). Then they use it for their kids swimming lessons or whatever, which cost more than if you just paid privately as they are private or targeted small groups. It probably needs to be stripped back to more basic supports and the extras run through not for profits and community organisations like it was previously.

      • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 16:48
        +3

        660k people who, by definition, have far more complicated and intense medical needs than the rest of the population combined. of course it costs a lot to take care of those most in need.

    • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 09:10
      +2

      When a private enterprise wants to survive, if they reduce the headcount, they need innovation to work more effective. In public sector, more headcount does not always equals to better outcome. There must be audit into public sector efficiency/productivity to determine which department need more/less headcount.

      Pls don't spread this fear.

      • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 09:14
        +1

        Btw, there are more than 41000 public servants receiving pensions of more than 75k per annum

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:13

          How do I get in on that game?

          • MrThing on 29/03/2025 - 17:24
            +1

            @tenpercent: fail at a private business career and think, hmmm maybe the public sector is where I am needed most

            • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 17:27

              @MrThing: Do all APS get these kinds of pensions?

              • MrThing on 29/03/2025 - 17:40

                @tenpercent: a government pension is a joke. thats what super was designed for

                • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 17:56

                  @MrThing: $75k a year for 20 years at retirement age is approx $1m super balance in a conservative option (about 5% p.a. returns). More if you live longer.

                  The average 60 year old has less than half that in their super. The average 50 year old is not on track to get to that.

                  On the surface it seems like a pretty good deal if you can get it. (Depending on requirements to qualify for it.)

                  • MrThing on 29/03/2025 - 17:58

                    @tenpercent: sounds pretty good when your accumulating super as well, then get that as well……..

                    • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 18:01

                      @MrThing: If it's true. I would have thought it is some legacy thing from before super was introduced. But at the same time I won't be surprised if they stll do this. Just another way to waste taxpayer money.

                      • MrThing on 29/03/2025 - 18:07

                        @tenpercent: well we know for a fact that politicians who sit in the hor or senate get a pension

                        • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 18:09

                          @MrThing: Nah that was phased out years ago. Sitting MPs and Senators at the time or before still get it but new ones don't.

  • iannrob44 on 28/03/2025 - 07:15

    If only they delivered on what they say to get elected. Lies lies lies

    • MrThing on 29/03/2025 - 17:41

      so basically never.

  • ForkSnorter on 28/03/2025 - 07:31
    +29

    So essentially, Dutton promises

    1. 41,000 fewer jobs, effective immediately

    2. $10 billion less spent on building affordable housing, thereby increasing pressure on existing housing (and consequently pushing up prices even more)

    3. Allowing people to use their superannuation to buy houses, thereby pumping $ billions more into the existing property market (and consequently pushing up prices even more) (wealthy property investors who already own heaps of properties are going to love Dutton)

    4. Some vague thing about gas….?

    5. Cuts to green energy development

    6. An unproven claim that electricity will be cheaper if he's elected.

    7. A bunch of policies for which details have not been provided.

    Yay, how inspiring Mr. Dutton.

    • duluxe2000 on 28/03/2025 - 09:05
      +2

      Budget reply is often vague no matter which party is the opposition.

      People often vote for opposition not often because they are better, it's because they are fed up with the incumbent.

      • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 13:05

        People often vote for opposition not often because they are better, it's because they are fed up with the incumbent.

        Very true, regardless it doesn't stop the opposition when they get in from that position from claiming "We have a mandate, the Australian people voted for us to implement our policies". Always bugs the shit out of me when we dump an incompetent government and the winner proclaims it as us wanting them and what they represent.

    • arkie0 on 28/03/2025 - 09:23
      -1

      Let me rephrase that for you since you seem so biased

      1. Saves 4B annually, effective immediately (Labour in VIC did the same sht I was made redundant when they cut the health budget to hospitals)

      2. Saves $10 billion less spent on "building affordable housing" - where homes aren't built they're "delivered/purchased" from existing stock thereby pumping $ billions more into the existing property market (and consequently pushing up prices even more) (wealthy property investors who already own heaps of properties are going to love affordable housing plan).

      3. "We'll give gas to Aussies first before exporting it for profit, like they do in WA" - Gas will be 65% cheaper.

      4. Cuts to "carbon capture" LOL

      5. Just so you know I'm not Lib biased, Nuclear plan sucks just as much (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqVVBUdW84)

      • meowbert on 29/03/2025 - 20:10

        They downvoted hin because he spoke the truth

    • ThithLord on 31/03/2025 - 09:31

      And he has stated he wants to completely dismantle Future Made in Australia. He literally hates manufacturing in Australia - how patriotic can one be?

  • EightImmortals on 28/03/2025 - 07:55

    Response from non-government citizens advocacy.

    https://www.taxpayers.org.au/quick-bites/budget-top-priority…

    The government didn’t plan to be giving today’s budget, and the opposition didn’t expect to have to give a budget response later this week. The original plan was most likely an April election, but Cyclone Alfred has changed the game, and now both sides of politics are struggling for something relevant to say in this rushed last-minute budget season.

    Expectations are not high. The budget is predicted to have deficits into the foreseeable future despite runaway income tax revenue, with billions more in pre-election handouts, and no serious productivity reform. Thus far the opposition has been content to match the extra spending and reform shyness. This is the wrong approach.

    There is a golden opportunity for whichever party is first to offer meaningful income tax cuts.

    The economic case for tax cuts is overwhelming, and often repeated. Bracket creep is pushing more of our income into higher tax brackets, creating a hidden tax hike each year that is making the government bigger and workers poorer. At the same time, high taxes are leading to poor incentives, stagnant productivity, and lower real wages.

    These arguments are true, but in the heat of an election campaign it’s fair to assume that most politicians will be more focused on the short-term politics rather than long-term prosperity of the nation.

    The good news is that tax cuts are also good politics. Perhaps not the radical tax cuts that I would ideally prefer, but there are plenty of moderate reforms that would make for good policy and good politics. The Liberals have an opportunity to differentiate themselves as the party of productivity and working families. If the Liberals forgo that opportunity, then Labor could flip the script and wrong-foot the opposition with tax cuts that primarily benefit low-income workers.

    Below are some tax proposals that would provide hip pocket relief to struggling families while improving productivity, simplicity, and fairness. Any one of them would be a step in the right direction.

  • kanter on 28/03/2025 - 08:08
    +16

    He really earned the Temu Trump title!

    • Snoozer on 28/03/2025 - 10:33
      +17

      The entire world is facing a cost of living crisis following Covid. It's not directly related to Albo's policies.

      How is Dutton addressing mistakes? His energy plan has no substance and it will be 20 years before any nuclear reactors can be brought online.

      As pointed out by others, Dutton's budget will cause house prices/demand to rise even further. This will keep increasing the cost of living for many young Australians.

      • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 12:20
        +5

        20 years is absolute best case, more like 30 if they happen at all (and thats a big if).

    • SBOB on 28/03/2025 - 12:39

      Got to love the new sign up one poster preaching about how great their affiliated political party is (for either side)

      No idea how it shouldn't be considered equivalent to spam.

    • FlyingMiffy on 28/03/2025 - 14:12
      +2

      @Sharonlouisesmith where can i read about these direct solutions? Id love to know how we will have nuclear power within his potential first term in government with actual reduction in my energy bill (granted im pretty happy with my solar and have only clocked about 500 bucks in bills over 12 months for a family of 5!)?

    • kanter on 31/03/2025 - 14:37

      He ain't addressing anything, he's just trying to surf on Trump's announcements and replicate them. His announcement about slashing 41.000 public servants may sound compelling, reality is, the work still needs to be done, it will just go to private companies to engage contractors and end up costing 2-3 times as much. I worked as a contractor in local government for 7 years, my wage was much higher than a permanent, on top of which a payroll provider was taking their cut, and a recruitment agency taking theirs. All this to keep the official number of employees low

  • Wiadro on 28/03/2025 - 09:10
    +7

    Dictator Dutton

    • Gunnar on 28/03/2025 - 09:33
      +7

      I call him Donald Dutton

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:15

      Elbow Kneesy

      • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 11:29
        +3

        Did you get that off your 6 year old?

    • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 11:28
      +3

      Temu Trump.

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

        Did you get that off your 6 year old cat?

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 11:40
          -1

          My God that is even more pathetic. Maybe go read some Oscar Wilde to see how to do this properly.

  • djones145 on 28/03/2025 - 09:42

    election date set
    its on like dobkey kong

    time for the mud fight to begin

  • CaptainJack on 28/03/2025 - 09:50
    +1

    Don't particularly like Dutton, but Albo is obviously a non-starter.

    • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 16:50

      why?

      • CaptainJack on 29/03/2025 - 22:43

        There's two statements there

        • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 23:13
          +1

          why is albo 'obviously' a non-starter?

  • saltypete on 28/03/2025 - 09:57
    +4

    Even rusted on LNP folks can see that they need more bench time. They have no coherent policies and if elected theyll be no different to the Morrison times. They aren't even an effective Opposition atm, the first step in becoming an effective Government.
    If I wasnt actually paying for it, it would be amusing to see Wangus trying to be a Treasurer, given his stellar past performance in energy that is quietly being fixed. And his previous interesting take on contracting. He refuses to debate Chalmers because their budget reply is undefendable.
    So no, theyre still miles off and the best thing that can happen for them is for them to get a similar result to WA - it will give a chance for the menagerie to empty and talent in waiting to get Opposition time.

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:16
      +6

      Living standards have been falling under both ALP and LNP for years.

    • ForkSnorter on 28/03/2025 - 10:35
      +15

      Calling the "left" the "far left" is how you justify your political position?

      Not surprised.

      This is what I see from the right constantly: misrepresenting their political opponents in order to more easily ridicule them. It is effectively lying (to yourself and to others). But, I guess the right enjoys lying. Donald Lying Trump with his post-truth world, Elon Lying Musk with his Twitter propaganda, millions of rightwing trolls on social media (YouTube, X, Rumble, Facebook) getting nearly all their information from biased social media channels that do exactly what you do: mischaracterize, oversimplify, and generalize their leftwing political opponents in order to more easily ridicule them and consequently feel better about their weak and confused rightwing opinions. Are you not embarrassed about living in a made-up fantasy land where you do not care at all about the truth?

      • cashless on 29/03/2025 - 14:43
        +1

        Are you not embarrassed about living in a made-up fantasy land where you do not care at all about the truth?

        Love it. Same could apply to religious beliefs, but we’re on the wrong thread for that🙂

    • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 11:37
      +4

      The current interest rates are much lower than standard. The artificially low ones is why the housing market has reached such ludicrously high levels. That and the tax breaks the LNP introduced for property portfolios rather than owners. The biggest point is the LNP would’ve made this situation much, much worse than the ALP has. Inflation has dropped dramatically since the ALP took over and support for Australians is across the board not just tax cuts for the rich. Look at who is around Dutton in the LNP. I think we know who the imbeciles are.

      Look at the disaster that America is. The far right is totally out of control. Just culture wars and funnelling money to the rich. I don’t even know if America can get back to a functioning democracy.

    • whatgift on 28/03/2025 - 12:25
      +2

      Ozbargain aren’t as far left as you think - they just understand world economics and logic!

      • May4th on 29/03/2025 - 23:20
        +3

        for some people the world is a lot less threatening if they can draw a line in front of them and put everyone that doesn't agree with them on the other side and give them names. it helps them cope

        • ThithLord on 31/03/2025 - 09:36

          You could not have clarified it any further, you're spot on. Pinko!

    • Goonda on 31/03/2025 - 10:58
      -1

      And your comments have all just proved me right!
      Go on.. vote me down again!

  • freefall101 on 28/03/2025 - 11:05
    +11

    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.

    This is code for "the Liberals plan on spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants that will be paid for by the taxpayer, not power companies".

    This plan of just like for like replacing coal with nuclear and hoping wind and solar will pick up the slack is just a napkin plan with no depth to it. It also means we'll be running an aging coal fleet into the ground, with more blackouts from turbine outages to come.

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 12:26

      This is code for "the Liberals plan on spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants that will be paid for by the taxpayer, not power companies".

      I thought it was pretty clear that it was code for segregating a portion of Australia's gas production for use in the domestic markets to bring the price of energy down in the domestic market. He said that in his speech.
      Even if it was code for nuclear plants, as long as the taxpayer retains a proportionate (to the taxpayers' investment) equity stake in those projects then what's the problem? Oh that's right Labor AND Liberal both like to privatise and sell off (for cents on the dollar) all the infrastructure and public assets built and paid for by the taxpayers.

      This plan of just like for like replacing coal with nuclear and hoping wind and solar will pick up the slack is just a napkin plan with no depth to it. It also means we'll be running an aging coal fleet into the ground, with more blackouts from turbine outages to come.

      There's slightly more depth to that alleged plan than just hoping and crossing your fingers that wind and solar will suddenly replace all the baseload electricity production.

      • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 12:32
        +3

        The efficiencies and storage options with renewables are improving all the time. These issues will be solved long before nuclear gets off the sketch pad in Australia.

        The tax payer will be on the hook completely for nuclear because the numbers don’t stack up financially. Renewable projects are also being done by private companies and individuals. The LNP pfaffed around for ten years without giving us a comprehensive energy policy. If nuclear was it then they should’ve done it then. Nuclear is now just a reason to keep going with fossil fuels and stop renewables getting running. However, China will get renewables over the line and we need to be riding that wave.

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 12:39

          These issues will be solved long before nuclear gets off the sketch pad in Australia.

          Maybe, but with continue heavy taxpayer funding (subsidies, incentives, credits, tax offsets, etc) and no proportionate equity stake in the ventures. I.e. money for big corporations (just a different set of big corporations, albeit often with the same major shareholders).

          I don't believe the strawman that there was any coded language for nuclear power in the speech. It was rather clear language for segregating Australian gas production for the Australian energy markets.

          The LNP pfaffed around for ten years without giving us a comprehensive energy policy.

          Both major parties have pfaffed around for decades without any comprehensive long term vision for almost any area of policy.

          China will get renewables over the line and we need to be riding that wave.

          Then let China fund it all without Australian taxpayer assistance, and let's just take advantage of the possible future economically viable tech when and if it becomes available.

          • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2025 - 12:44
            +2

            @tenpercent: Sorry but the ALP has barely been in power for the last thirty years. When they are they are fighting bushfires from what the LNP did before them. We need the ALP in for a good long time like we had with Hawke, then they get up steam to do things.

            • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 12:47

              @try2bhelpful: The Hawke and Keating era was when the Labor party started selling off and selling out the country to big business.

      • freefall101 on 28/03/2025 - 12:41
        +3

        I thought it was pretty clear that it was code for segregating a portion of Australia's gas production for use in the domestic markets to bring the price of energy down in the domestic market. He said that in his speech.

        The 44%/$263 billion saving plan is his nuclear plan.

        The Liberals are saying the word "nuclear" a lot less, but they're just spinning the same plan in a different manner.

        The code is that they're saying "lower electricity prices" a lot, but they're not saying who is wearing the cost of building out those nuclear power plants. Considering that no one is interested in building them, I expect it to be a 100% government funded project that's sold off to private industry for peanuts who then make a fortune off it.

        There's slightly more depth to that alleged plan than just hoping and crossing your fingers that wind and solar will suddenly replace all the baseload electricity production.

        It won't replace baseload by itself and it's a lot more than just hoping and crossing your fingers, it's a detailed, actual plan. Whether the government follows that plan is a different question, but it's a lot more than what the Liberals have given us so far.

        Under the AEMO modelling, about 50% of our power capacity will come from solar and wind, up from about 30% today. The gap is being filled by storage. It's not really any different from the liberal plan, except they're modeling that our generation requirements will be about 20% lower thanks to have 24/7 nuclear. There'll be less nuclear capacity on the grid than there is coal right now. They're also saying they won't build offshore wind, presumably to win over their wealthy voters who don't want to see the tip of a windmill on their beachfront horizon.

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 12:46
          -1

          I expect it to be a 100% government funded project that's sold off to private industry for peanuts who then make a fortune off it.

          Which is obviously completely different to giving an ongoing revenue stream of credits, subsidies, tax offsets and other incetives to 'green' energy corporations.

          Under the AEMO modelling…

          The AEMO modelling isn't worth a Credit grade as an undergraduate assessment at a second tier university.

          • freefall101 on 28/03/2025 - 13:09
            +1

            @tenpercent:

            Which is obviously completely different to giving an ongoing revenue stream of credits, subsidies, tax offsets and other incetives to 'green' energy corporations.

            Yes, it absolutely is. Incentives to build power is a hell of a lot cheaper than simply building it with taxpayer funds and we do it all the time.

            Most of the money the government is spending is going to the CEFC, who (according to their webpage) for every $1 they invest other groups invest $4.85.

            How much exactly are these credits, subsidies, etc you're complaining about? Because the bill to build 14GW of nuclear power could easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

            The AEMO modelling isn't worth a Credit grade as an undergraduate assessment at a second tier university.

            How about you tell us why it's wrong? I explained what's wrong with the Frontier economics modelling and how it's still reliant on wind and solar, you could at least do me the curtesy of the same in return.

            Even the Liberals trust AEMO's pricing, they keep quoting it often enough. They also do a wide-ranging consultation program to come up with the data. You're going to need more than attacks on them to make me disbelieve their data.

      • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 28/03/2025 - 12:53
        +1

        Oh that's right Labor AND Liberal both like to privatise and sell off (for cents on the dollar) all the infrastructure and public assets built and paid for by the taxpayers.

        Then why did the ALP just pass a law requiring the NBN remain in public ownership?

        https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 13:01

          Well that is out of character.

          Commonwealth Bank
          Telecom/Telstra
          Qantas
          Electricity and gas producers and networks
          Etc

  • Danger on 28/03/2025 - 12:03
    +8

    Enough of two party dominance. I'm going Green

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 12:16

      Enough of two party dominance.

      Yes.

    • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 16:45
      -3

      Then vote Teal or independent, anyone but Greens, they are perhaps the only party worse than LNP or ALP when given a smidge of power.

      • Danger on 28/03/2025 - 17:20
        +6

        I'll be voting them for their bold housing policies. Cut back CGT and negative gearing. I'm worried that my kids won't be able to afford buying a house.

        • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 17:36
          -2

          Well they certainly wont be able to afford a house if the greens ever have power.

          • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 16:51
            -1

            @gromit: can you explain how?

            • gromit on 29/03/2025 - 18:36
              -1

              @jrowls: Greens are clueless idiits when it comes to economics, they would send us into an economic death spiral with thier ridiculous policies that will see unemployment and costs skyrocket.

    • morse on 29/03/2025 - 11:15

      Realistically greens won’t hold government- make sure you preference wisely.

    • meowbert on 29/03/2025 - 20:12

      The most ideologically compromised party ever? Great idea.

    • Snoozer on 30/03/2025 - 10:37
      +1

      100% Just make sure LNP goes last.

  • grr1701 on 28/03/2025 - 12:50
    +4

    And yet, no details on his “cheap” nuclear plan which he promised. NOTE:- Small Modular Reactors are not commercially available, and not expected to be until late 2030s to mid 2040s.🤦🏻‍♂️

  • gentlekoala5906 on 28/03/2025 - 13:26

    I don't want to vote for Albo or Albo Lite, what do I do?

    • Rysta on 28/03/2025 - 14:12
      +9

      Have a look at all of the representatives in your electorate. Vote for them in order of how much you agree with their policies, except make sure LNP and Labor are at the bottom (worst of the two being last). Though of course if there are any parties you really dislike (nazis, etc), feel free to put them after LNP/Labor.

      If your electorate allows you to only vote for one candidate, do not do it. You want your vote to count even if your first preference doesn't win.

  • abuch47 on 28/03/2025 - 13:52
    +1

    Neoliberals that externalise the genocide(and empathy) for the good of the GDP, slightly raising social welfare
    or
    Inferior economists continuing to fire sale our nation to their oligarch overlords hoping they get a drop of the trickle down splooge while they seig heil and pretend to be ignorant of its meaning

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:16

      while they seig heil

      I haven't been following the tabloids for a while so you lost me there. Which Australian politicians have been doing that?

    • jrowls on 29/03/2025 - 16:52
      +1

      this is the only way to have a 'both sides suck' take that is based haha.

  • cashless on 28/03/2025 - 14:02
    +2

    Dare he not mention the "N" word?
    Do people really want Australia to spend Aukus x 5 to build a bunch of nuclear power stations?
    Maybe Dutton will fund it by stuffing 25% tariffs on our trading partners.

  • FlyingMiffy on 28/03/2025 - 14:06
    +11

    Cant see myself voting for Voldermort… i voted for Scotty but Dutton is unelectable to me. I dont know how taking 41,000 jobs to the chopping board makes it good policy when those 41,000 jobs was the alternative to the hundreds of million spent on consultants like PWC, EY etc. Maybe the big 4 took Dutton out to lunch… during Cyclone Alfred… in Syd. Ha

    • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:20
      -4

      Why not just get rid of those public servant positions and not backfill with consultants.

      Aside: How does Canberra come up with accommodation so quickly for 41 thousand new public teat suckers?

      • FlyingMiffy on 28/03/2025 - 14:23
        +1

        Is the assumption that those 41,000 dont do anything? Well, i suppose another 41,000 on social security is better???

        • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:26

          Is the assumption that those 41,000 dont do anything?

          No that is not the assumption. Where did you get that idea? From Dutto?
          .

          Well, i suppose another 41,000 on social security is better???

          You reckon 3 years ago they were all on the dole? I doubt it.

          • FlyingMiffy on 28/03/2025 - 14:53

            @tenpercent: Unemployment rate was 3.5% in 2022. Now at 4%. So unless there are more jobs available now than in 2022, those 41,000 wont all be re-employed quickly. Accounting for the 0.5% difference, using 2024 data, we have about 15.6m as our total workforce and 0.5% is about 78,000 jobs. Add the 41,000 into it and going by your assumption that those positions are left unfilled, Dutton's policy will increase unemployment to about 4.3%. And saving $7b annually off 41,000 roles is an average salary of 170K… are those numbers right??

            • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 15:07

              @FlyingMiffy: Your maths about the additional unemployed people isn't correct because a lot of those people will just return to consulting, or fill empty private sector jobs which yes do exist in spite of the increase in unemployment under Labor now all the way up to 4%. Some sectors and roles have vacancies while the majority of the unemployed are low or unskilled people who probably are not among the 41 thousand public servants of the topic of this conversation.

              But for the sake of argument let's assume your maths on the additional unemployment is correct. The taxpayer saves $7b/yr by having fewer public servants (41k jobs times $170k/yr) but incurs added expenses of $0.891b/yr (41k additional Jobseekers times maximum rate of $21,749/yr = $0.891b) which means the taxpayer is better off by $6.109b/yr.

              • FlyingMiffy on 28/03/2025 - 15:55
                +3

                @tenpercent: Lets say for argument sake that im right… the 170K salaried public servant pays about $51,567 as income tax back to the government or just over 2.1b for 41,000 people. Job seekers pay $725 in taxes on an annualized full year. So for about 4b in actual cost, what kind of productivity do you get from 41,000 people? The main justification seems to be that the 41,000 dont do anything and therefore the savings can be banked without any cost. And i dont think thats true.

                • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 16:14

                  @FlyingMiffy: I can't be bothered doing the exact maths on it but we're talking about an approximate MINIMUM (minimum because recall your idea that 41k public servants will just end up on the dole queue is probably incorrect) net $3 billion per annum saving (factoring the income tax differential).

                  the main justification seems to be that the 41,000 dont do anything

                  It could be that many of the newly hired 41 thousand do do something productive and useful and wanted. Perhaps some of the rusted-on old timers do less / nothing useful.

                  Either way I sure don't feel like I'm getting even a portion of 41 thousand people worth of or $3bn worth of any improved public services from the federal government in the last 3 years to justify that spend.

                  • freefall101 on 29/03/2025 - 10:17
                    +4

                    @tenpercent: It’s the frustrating thing with the liberals, you dig into the data and saying they’ll fire 41k people is moronic and a terrible promise to make. Yet there’s wastage that needs cleaning up

                    Labor converted 11k contractor positions to permanent headcount, because the liberals put an arbitrary cap on the size of the public service then filled the shortages with contractors. Labor actually saved money by increasing the headcount here

                    Another increase was to deal with the backlog at veterans affairs. The review into veteran suicides showed the massive backlog at the DVA in supplying services to vets was potentially contributing to suicides. That won’t improve services for most people, but it’s necessary.

                    The libs are also saying they won’t cut frontline staff, which has grown. They’re pretending they can gut back office staff and all will be fine. If they don’t plan on brining back the contractors, it will completely gut federal government employees.

                    However there is waste. The NDIS is a boondoggle, it’s in desperate need of reform. Health department headcount has exploded despite not delivering more doctors.

                    But what worries me is that an election promise of 41k headcount going means they will cut that, whether it’s useful or not. It’s going to be done by attrition, not targeted, so they’re not even trying to be responsible about it.

                    I can’t vote for a plan that’s blatantly irresponsible like that.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join