Mandatory Loyalty: I still think that mandatory costings are not implementable, or not worth implementing due to the limitations on political speech this implies. If parties wish to submit their policies for the Treasury seal of approval, then fine, though it gives the Treasury mandarins a rather too hefty political place in election campaigns for my taste. Treasury isn\'t a very independent referee as their jobs depend on government ministers; set up yet another if you must, or better still let the parties fight with economic forecasts at 10 paces.
More to the point, theories of economics do compete in election campaigns even now at the end of history. When John Hewson said by dropping the youth minimum wage and cutting small business taxes we can create x thousands of jobs, is that a budget promise? Would not longer range budget forecasts be expected to account for it? It\'s the sort of point that reasonable people can distinguish and argue about but it\'s not the sort of distinction that can or should be made by a court of law (or a economics commission pretending to be one).
It doesn\'t matter though, because the mandatory compliance is made redundant by your later, excellent suggestion: more equitable access to the civil service parties not currently in government. All the representatives in Parliament are there as part of the Government of Australia. To me this is not a turning away from the concept of the Loyal Opposition but an embracing of it. The opposition are Loyal to Australia, they are the elected representatives of the people, therefore they can be trusted to inspect the mechanics of the institution and prepare as an alternative government for a stint running the country.
Comments