Mr Keating accused Mr Costello of presiding over the growth of Australian debt abroad from $129 billion in 1996, to $705 billion in 2007.

‘‘The Future Fund is all about national savings, yet during Costello’s period as treasurer, national savings were so depleted,’’ he said.

‘‘Costello was a policy bum of the first order who squandered 11 years of economic opportunity.’’

And while Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said Mr Costello was a ‘‘very appropriate guardian’’ for the Future Fund, he criticised Mr Rudd as hypocritical for his decision to appoint him.

‘‘It’s certainly a very good appointment, Peter set up the Future Fund so he’s a very appropriate guardian for it,’’ Mr Turnbull told Network Ten.

‘‘But it does show, I must say, the complete hypocrisy of Kevin Rudd on economic matters.’’

-----------------------

Confused?... Not this baby.

ENRAGED by what he regards as an invasion of his family's privacy, the former prime minister Paul Keating has called for the rewriting of privacy laws so that media would have to gain someone's permission before publishing a photograph or story about their private life.

''Matters for which there is no public right to know ought to be the preserve of the citizenry in its privacy,'' Mr Keating told the Herald yesterday.

''That includes details of their personal lives, altercations in marriages, love affairs, compromising photographs taken of them privately without their consent. These are all matters that should be off limits for newspapers and other media.''

--------------------

Gus: I would say strongly annoyed... not "enraged" as written by the SMH... See toon at top... And I would add some people living in glasshouses made of flimsy paper (at the News limited empire) should be careful of antagonising some people with silly stuff.

I was going to give you a link to the transcripts or a web broadcast of what Paul Keating said this morning (16/03/10), but I was too lazy... I'll give you instead the digested news of what he said. Of course the real thing was hilariously spot on. But it is frightfully sad to see Abbott's nuttery gain so much kudos in the polls...

from the ABC

Former prime minister Paul Keating has labelled Liberal leader Tony Abbott an "intellectual nobody" and a "poor man's Howard" with no policy ambition.

Speaking on Radio National today, the former Labor prime minister gave a scathing assessment of Mr Abbott's performance as opposition leader, saying he had consolidated the right-wing "nutters" behind him.

And he took exception to Mr Abbott's criticism of Indigenous acknowledgment and welcome to country ceremonies at official functions by calling him a "little John Howard".

"If Tony Abbott ends up the prime minister of Australia, you've got to say, God help us," he said.

"[He is] truly an intellectual nobody and [has] no policy ambition."

Mr Keating also took a swipe at Mr Abbott's finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce, calling him a "Bjelke-Petersen junior" in reference to former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Mr Keating says when he was prime minister, Mr Abbott was regarded as "a sort of resident nutter" within politics.

"Where is the thought-out position? Turnbull had an articulated, intellectual, moderate, thought-out conservative position," he said. "The fact is that Abbott does not have this."

Mr Abbott won the leadership from Malcolm Turnbull last December after urging the party to reject Mr Turnbull's climate change policy.

And he opened up a new front in the culture wars yesterday by claiming that acknowledgment of Indigenous elders at official functions was paternalistic and tokenistic.

Mr Keating, whose government introduced Native Title legislation in the wake of the Mabo High Court decision, says the country should have moved past that sort of attitude.

"If you want to go round telling lies all your life, historical lies like Abbott does, fine," he said.

"[But] do we want little John Howard? It was bad enough having the real John Howard."

---------------------

Gus: could not agree more.... see toon at top...

Former prime minister Paul Keating has lashed out at his predecessor Bob Hawke, saying he had to "carry him" through years of "emotional and intellectual malaise".

The letter, obtained by The Australian newspaper, was written on the weekend in response to a new Bob Hawke biography written by his wife Blanche d'Alpuget.

Mr Keating, who served as treasurer under Mr Hawke before ousting him in 1991, has called the book "unfair and unreasonable".

Mr Keating says he carried Mr Hawke while the prime minister was suffering from depression after finding that his daughter Rosslyn had used heroin in 1984.

"The fact is, Bob, I was exceedingly kind to you for a very long time," he wrote.

"[Your] emotional and intellectual malaise lasted for years.

"I carried you through the whole 1984-1987 parliament, insisting you look like the prime minister, even if your staff, the Manchu Court I called them, were otherwise prepared to leave you in your emotional hole. No other prime minister would have survived going missing for that long.

"All through the Tax Summit year of 1985; through to your lacklustre performance through the 1987 election, to the point when in 1988, four years later, [John] Dawkins had to front you, asking you to leave."

Mr Keating said he told Ms d'Alpuget that she "could not write about your years with me, without dealing honestly and fully with your long years of depression and executive incapacity."

He said he was considering writing his own book to correct "yours and Blanche's rewriting of history [which] is not only unreasonable and unfair [but] grasping".

"It is as if, Narcissus-like, you cannot find enough praise to heap upon yourself," he said.

-------------------

Of course Keating is right :

From the Australian:

Indeed, you will have well noticed that I have desisted from writing any exposes; that I have not reflected adversely on your years as prime minister. When criticism of the Labor years often arose at the hands of Howard and Costello, I would more often than not make a defensive comment in terms of "us" or "Bob and I", because I believed the unity of our purpose reflected more strongly on what we achieved and on Labor's record. That is, we looked stronger together than as two personalities separated as to objectives and outcomes. And this was the way I was happy to leave it.

But you are not happy to leave it. You want to retrace the ground for a second time in a major book, only this time a book written by your wife. Of course, I have not yet seen the book; I can only go on the serialised excerpts and news stories of the kind referred to above. But the Dusevic news story on page three is obviously a lift from the book where you (or Blanche) wilfully misrepresent my role in the float of the exchange rate with supportive quotes for your line by Ross Garnaut, your rusted on, if one-eyed, adviser at the time. The book apparently quotes Bill Hayden saying "he wanted me to be onside with him to oppose it". This, of course, is totally untrue, as my real mission with Hayden at that time was to bring him onside as he was one of the few people in cabinet able to upend or delay it. But to give Hayden his due, he always saw the sense of it. Or at least from May 1983 when it became apparent that the managed system was on its last legs.

The Dusevic story then goes on to misrepresent my position in relation to the first Gulf War. As you know, in 1991 I was in favour of the UN system returning to life after the long impasse of the Cold War and, in meetings with you, I said that if President Bush, two years after the (Berlin) Wall had come down, was prepared to reinvigorate the UN with a UN-mandated assault upon Saddam Hussein, I believed Australia should support it. And if you remember, I advised you to get in early before Mulroney and the British because the Americans were looking mainly for early moral support rather than material support. I went on to say this should allow us to put a couple of ships up the top of the gulf rather than commit ground forces and aircraft. And you were happy to agree. As I remember at the time, mighty happy, for I was both deputy prime minister and treasurer and effective leader of the Right in the parliamentary caucus. My agreement meant full political protection for you.

Which brings me to the point, what do I do from here? The first thing I will do is, when I get a hold of a copy, read the book. But I suspect the book will be a more polished reflection of your self-serving account of your years as prime minister. I will bet, London to a brick on, that the book will do way less than share those years of achievements with me, or my work or indeed adequately with the work of other ministers. I will also bet, London to a brick on, that notwithstanding what the serialised account on Saturday had to say of your breakdown in 1984, that the book will fail to make clear that your emotional and intellectual malaise lasted for years. All through the Tax Summit year of 1985; through to your lacklustre performance through the 1987 election, to the point when in 1988, four years later, (John) Dawkins had to front you, asking you to leave. It was only after that that you approached me, at your initiative, to enter into an agreement with me to succeed you following the 1990 election. An agreement you subsequently broke. The fact is, Bob, I was exceedingly kind to you for a very long time. I knew the state you were in in 1984 and notwithstanding a lot of unhelpful advice from Garnaut and other obsequious members of your staff, I carried you through the whole 1984-1987 parliament, insisting you look like the prime minister, even if your staff, the Manchu Court I called them, were otherwise prepared to leave you in your emotional hole. No other prime minister would have survived going missing for that long. But with my help, you were able to. Kevin Rudd had two months of bad polls and you were the first to say he should be replaced. And you have since repeated it. Indeed, when Blanche asked me to be interviewed for her book, I told her she could not write about your years with me, without dealing honestly and fully with your long years of depression and executive incapacity. I told her for that reason alone, I should prefer no interview with her.

This letter is written now, not simply to express my disappointment but to let you know that enough is enough. That yours and Blanche's rewriting of history is not only unreasonable and unfair, more than that, it is grasping. It is as if, Narcissus-like, you cannot find enough praise to heap upon yourself. In hindsight, it is obvious yours and Blanche's expressions of friendship towards me over the last few years have been completely insincere. I can only promise you this: if I get around to writing a book, and I might, I will be telling the truth; the whole truth. And that truth will record the great structural changes that occurred during our years and my own as prime minister, but it will also record without favour, how lucky you were to have me drive the government during your down years, leaving you with the credit for much of the success.

---------------------

Having met both men, in various circusntances... I can say I was more than happy to see Keating — the Musical with the man himself enjoying it in the audience... but I can tell you I won't be watching Hawke — the sad saga...

 

and Ms Devine makes some sense today... Blimey!

In one of her many interviews this week, Blanche said their love story would be their greatest legacy. "I know that when I'm dead and when Bob's dead, what people will remember was that this was a very great love. And it's the love story that will be remembered."

Well, not just that. It is also the story of a great betrayal. The sour note is, of course, Hazel Hawke, Bob's long-suffering wife of 39 years, discarded when no longer needed for his political career.

She is now living in a north shore nursing home with advanced Alzheimer's disease that mercifully will spare her knowledge of her life history being rewritten by the woman who stole the love of her life.

Hazel endured Bob's alcoholism and his womanising because she adored him, not because she had a burning desire to live in The Lodge, as Blanche seems to suggest.

-------------------

But for Julia Gillard to praise Hawke takes the cake.

Thank goodness that her deputy Swan takes after Keating the Solid and keeps an eye on the figures, despite the UNFAIR front page headlies (yes, I mean headlies — not headlines of the press) of the SMH today, where the scribes are irritated that the economy is looking better than they predicted thus they call it "Labor strikes it lucky"... "Looks too good, if it's true" and  "Latest spin fails to hide emperor's con job"... Had the SAME prognostic been made by a CONservative government, the praise would have oozed like gold from the pens of these CONservative hacks... Yes... and Fran Kelly of Radio Liberal/National was in a flap this morning because Swan was painting rings around her silly questioning.

see toon at top...

Barrie Cassidy, TV presenter and former press secretary to Bob Hawke, has rejected claims that the former prime minister went "missing" for four of his eight years at the helm due to depression.

The veteran political commentator said there was no indication Mr Hawke had failed in his duties or suffered "emotional and intellectual malaise" from 1986 to 1991, the period he worked for the Hawke government.

...

Mr Cassidy told radio station 3AW that if Mr Hawke had been frozen by depression in the early 1980s, he had "thawed out" by late 1986, when he joined his staff.

Asked if he saw any sign of Mr Hawke failing in his duties or suffering "intellectual and emotional" malaise, Mr Cassidy said: "Absolutely none through that period."

"To suggest that he was still undergoing some kind of depression when I was there just staggers me because it's just, his personality was just, it didn't give any indication that there was any depression going on. He seemed to love life, and had a really good life balance," Mr Cassidy said.

-----------------

Gus: of course by then, Blanche had already entered Bob's life (1973) and by then I believe he had more or less dumped his daughters problem onto Hazel, who was performing above and beyond.

"From that first wage case, in 1958, I had pretty much rock star status," he said. He worked hard, drank hard and played hard while wife Hazel stayed in the background, running the house and rearing the children.

She was a down-to-earth woman who kept her emotions under firm control and had no illusions about her husband's philandering. But she was proud to be the wife of a man of outstanding ability who, materially, was a good provider.

------------

Gus: Hazel was the plumber, the confidante, the "dad" the girls were missing out on... while Bob was frolicking about. Meanwhile... I will say here I never trusted Barrie Cassidy and I'm not going to start now...

As a lay expert on depression, I can say, one of the contradictions of people experiencing some form of selective "depression" is the ability to appear "normal" after the event. Depression is not, at this point in time, a state of mind across the board of personality, but of selective areas and particular moments — that can be only perceived by the closest smart partners — in this case Paul Keating. Less astute people would see a resolve, nearly gung-ho and steely attitude with no roundness in emotional behaviour, like a mask...

People who feel depression across the board at all time soon find themselves in the deep doldrums of total inaction.

Action (activity) usually helps maintain depression at bay — though not "eliminating" it entirely. Only a thought-out process or a change of focus (dismissing/solving a problem, finding a new love, a new direction) can push depression back in the sandpit of memory. But the memory of depression persists — only to be out-performed by the memory of happiness on the forefront of our newest "choice" — our "selected" behaviour...

---------------------

From Blanche herself:

In late 1978 Bob proposed to me. But I was absolutely devastated when he told me that he wasn't going to get divorced after all. I was really beside myself with distress over it. Initially I thought I would commit suicide. And then I hit the next layer, which was anger and fury with him, so then I wanted to kill him rather than myself. And then finally I worked through that. Before we had broken up, I was already wanting to write a biography of him and I thought the Australian public was entitled to know his genuine strengths and some of his genuine weakness. And, also, how serious his drinking problem was.

I was divorced in 1986. Bob and I resumed our relationship in late 1988. My father was sitting next to him at the lunch table and he lent over and he felt Bob's thigh, and it's very... He's very muscular and hard. And my father said, "That's good, he's strong." Bob and I, because of our ages, we know that we've got 10 or maybe 15 very good active years together.

---------------------

If my mother could speak for herself . . .

Sue Pieters-Hawke, Daughter of Bob and Hazel Hawke, tells her mother's story.

....

The reason for this is that things have been said, and people portrayed, in a manner that fundamentally misrepresents their character. I have observed what I believe are fair and respectful boundaries about commenting publicly on the personalities and complex relationships of my family life or anyone else's. I am loyal to both my parents. But a line has been crossed, a legacy hijacked, and a lot of people are seriously unimpressed. The part I take particularly personally is a suite of comments and insinuations about my mother Hazel. Their effect is to invite a rewriting of history on the basis of a series of inaccurate premises. Forbearance extends only so far before it becomes a complicit silence, and I think it's time that, as someone who has known her well for 53 years and spoken previously on her behalf, I set a few things straight.

My mother is entitled, on the basis of the life she has lived and the way she has lived it, to be recognised as a person of deep conviction and principled choices. She was consistently motivated by far more noble concerns than money, where she lived, or the "reputation du jour" of her ex-husband.

....

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45678.html

see toon at top...

WHILE the political world today is seized with the policy debate concerning the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, just over a decade ago it was considered a boutique issue, the province of minor parties.

So much so that John Howard and Peter Costello accidentally spent $400 million when trying to curry favour with the Australian Democrats during negotiations for the GST.

The anecdote is one of several recounted in a new book titled The Sweet Spot by the Herald's political editor, Peter Hartcher.

Subtitled How Australia Made its Own Luck and Could Now Throw it all Away, the book traces the country's economic and political development, contrasts its present-day prosperity relative to the rest of the world and warns all could be lost ''if we don't recognise our strengths and demand true leadership of our politicians''.

The GST negotiations were in 1999 and Mr Howard needed the support of the Australian Democrats to pass the legislation through the Senate.

The Democrats leader, Meg Lees, was horse trading. One demand was for the government to establish a greenhouse gas abatement program.

The former treasurer Mr Costello tells Hartcher: ''This was 1999. Neither Howard nor I had much of an idea of what a greenhouse gas was, let alone how to abate it … Trying to co-operate without blowing the financial position, I whispered to Howard, 'Offer her four hundred.'

'''Okay,' he said. '$400 million.'

''She accepted. I tapped him on the shoulder and whispered in his ear, 'That's not what I meant. I meant we should offer her $400,000'.''

There was no way to retract the offer.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/400000-sweetener-became-400m-20111028-1moa4.html#ixzz1c8WyysQg

See toon at top... It's quite astonishing that in 1999, Costello and Howard had no idea of global warming nor of a "greenhouse gas"... Ignoramuses of the greatest order. Anyway, Mr Phillip Coorey, We do not have "leadership" issues but an opposition leader, Tony Abbott, who is — to not quote Mike Carton:

a negative and self-serving opportunist, an unprincipled populist devoid of policies, an aggressive and deceitful phoney for whom no media stunt is too facile, a homophobe, a blinkered reactionary of seething ambition convinced that he was born to rule and who would do or say anything to achieve that lifelong goal.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/so-wheres-the-outrage-now-boys-20111028-1mo1b.html#ixzz1c8YjI5O4

More than $2 billion has been wiped from Australia's future fund, with the uncertain global financial system blamed for the losses.

The Board of Guardians of Australia's future fund has updated its figures for the quarter and the news is not good.

The fund, set up by the Howard government to cover the superannuation of public servants, suffered a 2.9 per cent loss in the quarter ending in September.

That shrinks the value of the future fund from $75.39 billion to $73.18 billion.

Board chairman David Murray has reported global uncertainty caused the loss and stressed the country needs to look at reform to avoid future losses.

Mr Murray pointed to productivity, industrial relations and public spending as potential areas for reform.

This quarter's fall aside, the fund has made 4.4 per cent every year since 2006.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-29/billions-wiped-from-future-fund/3607862?WT.svl=news2

 

see toon at top...

 

Hazel Hawke, the ex-wife of former prime minister Bob Hawke, died today after complications of dementia at the age of 83.

She was a passionate campaigner for women's rights, and after her diagnosis with Alzheimer's disease in the early 2000s, used her profile to raise dementia awareness.

Born in Perth in 1929, Hazel Masterson married a young, ambitious Bob Hawke when she was 26.

The couple had four children, although one died in infancy.

When her husband was elected prime minister in 1983 their family life changed forever.

They called The Lodge home for the next eight years and Hazel Hawke embraced the role of First Lady.

A talented pianist, she campaigned on women's issues, reconciliation, drug education, welfare and the arts.

Hazel Hawke's role as Australia's first lady was over in 1991 with Mr Hawke's resignation as PM, but she continued her role in public life, campaigning on issues such as women's rights to abortion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/hazel-hawke-dies-from-dementia-complications/4709572

 

Hazel was there for all of us...

Our thoughts are with all her family.

 

 

Paul Keating, Prime Minister, was the architect of the present Australian retirement plan with a compulsory superannuation...

 

Australia is the world’s most successful pension market with assets under management increasing by 11.3 per cent a year over the 20 years to 2020, according to the latest Global Pension Assets study conducted by risk advisers Willis Towers Watson.

But before you plan an early retirement, that figure does not mean your fund will have averaged a return of 11.3 per cent over 20 years.

What it means is the total funds under management in our superannuation system increased by that amount – a figure that includes fund returns and rising contribution levels made by a growing workforce.

WTW’s pension think tank, Thinking Ahead Institute, explained Australia’s super success this way: “The critical features in this success have been government-mandated pension contributions, a competitive institutional model and the dominance of DC [defined contribution].”

In other words, the system has grown for three reasons.

Firstly, it has grown because the federal government requires all employers to contribute a rising amount of money into their workers’ pensions.

This amount is currently set at 9.5 per cent of workers’ wages but is scheduled to rise to 12 per cent by mid-2025.

Secondly, because workers can choose their funds, all funds compete for contributions and have a strong incentive to perform highly.

And thirdly, Australian super is overwhelmingly based on defined contributions, not defined benefits.

Because the latter promises a given retirement amount, funds using this model have to be very conservative and invest heavily in bonds to ensure they have the revenues to pay pensions regardless of what’s happening in financial markets.

Bonds are not a growth asset like shares and property so a defined benefit system grows more slowly.

 

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/superannuation/2021/02/21/australia-pension-super-world-beater/

 

 

Read from top.