The Coalition says it can deliver a budget surplus twice as big as Labor's and reduce debt by a third by 2013 if it were in government.

And it has announced it would make a further $9b in savings if it were in power, some of which would be made by scrapping Labor election promises and increasing the public service efficiency dividend.

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey and finance spokesman Andrew Robb have today released private analysis of the Coalition's costings after refusing to have them scrutinised by Treasury.

Mr Hockey says by 2012-13 the return to surplus under the Coalition would be at $6.2b compared to Labor's $3.5b.

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

Gus: "increasing the public service divident".... The old furphy of providing more for less... We've been there before with the Libshits... Their public services always get slashed beyond recognition and whatever YOU NEED or SHOULD GET from the "public service" YOU PAY FOR out of YOUR POCKET... Remember the Coalition refused to have their magic pudding scrutinised by Treasury... Been there done that. The entire world economy crashed with promises like that.

Figures checked by firm with Liberal ties

By Peter martin

THE Coalition's 12 pages of costings, said to save the budget $11.5 billion, are not costings in the traditional sense.

Under the costings process abandoned by the Coalition, the Department of Treasury and Finance detailed the assumptions used and the means by which the  numbers were arrived at.

By contrast the costings released by the Coalition yesterday contain none of that detail - they are simply a list of figures, one for each policy, with no explanations as to how the figures were derived.

Instead the document is covered by a one-page note from the Perth accountancy firm WHK Horwath, which says it ''is satisfied that based on the assumptions  provided, costed commitments and savings have been accurately prepared in all material respects''.

Which is encouraging, up to a point. That point is that the Coalition has not seen fit to air those costings - as it would have had to if it submitted them to Treasury and Finance in accordance with the Charter of Budget Honesty - and that Horwath has not done so either.

We are asked to take both Horwath and the Coalition on trust. Then known as Hendry, Rae and Court, Horwath's founding partner in 1938 was Charles Court,  later Sir Charles, the long-serving Liberal premier of Western Australia and father of Richard Court, the Liberal premier from 1993 to 2001.

The Horwath principal Geoff Kidd told the Herald last night that Sir Charles kept an office in the firm after he retired from politics and maintained an active interest in its work.

Horwath costed the policies of the West Australian Liberal Party during its successful run for office in 2008 and the firm also did work for the South Australian Liberals in their unsuccessful tilt at government in March this year. It began work on the federal Coalition's costings in mid-June, well before its leader, Tony Abbott, announced last week he was abandoning Treasury and Finance and would instead have his policies costed by ''a respected, reputable, well-known accounting firm''.

Horwath says it charged market rates and did not so much cost the Coalition's policies as satisfy itself that given ''the assumptions provided'' the Coalition's costings made sense.           

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

"The assumption provided"?????? Pull the other leg...   

Both major parties are committed to a budget surplus by 2012-13. In the wake of the release of Coalition commitments they are now arguing about whose surplus is going to be bigger by then. Having a surplus has become virtually the only marker of responsible economic management.

This is a sad commentary on the state of economic debate. There is no good reason to care very much about small differences in the budget balance in two years' time: the one thing we know for certain about the numbers is that they will be different by then.

Whether or not we have a surplus or deficit says little about the quality of economic management. It depends on the state of the rest of the economy, including the world economy to which we are connected, and also the quality of government taxes and spending.

A government can have a good surplus or a bad surplus.

A good surplus is generated when the economy is doing well, prudently sets aside funding for the future and leaves room for private investment. The surpluses generated in the early years of the Howard government are a good example.

A bad surplus runs down services to the public while condoning waste in the private corridors of the bureaucracy. The growth of handout programs in the later Howard years was not good budget management: see for example the Audit Office report on regional partnerships. That the budget was in surplus was not a sufficient reason for poor spending decisions.

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

That the later Howard years was not good budget management is an understatement... It started the day he wuz elected.

from Crikey...

Kevin Rudd has had his way. The reckless spending has indeed stopped. And yesterday the Coalition began reckless saving.

It’s hard to overstate just how badly the Coalition had handled the costings issue. Forget about the theatre about the Charter for Budget Honesty, a piece of legislation that has rightly been torn up and discarded by both parties. Forget about having a “mid-tier” accounting firm (as one Fin journalist snarkily described it) sign off on the costings — and ignore the smearing of that firm by some who suggest that having an old link to a Liberal politician somehow means they can’t, or won’t, add up correctly. Labor has done similar things in the past.

But at every stage the Liberals have acted like they have something to hide on Budget savings, and Tony Abbott has run a mile from the issue. He handballed it to Joe Hockey in May, and Hockey handballed it to Robb. Robb, who effortlessly eclipses Hockey every time the two are in the same room, has had the issue ever since. Yesterday, in a much-delayed press conference that barely allowed the commercial networks time to put together coverage, the final package was unveiled and, not to put too fine a point on it, it was rubbish.

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

see toon at top.

AFTER all the bluster and debate, after all the handshakes and promises, after all the claims and counter-claims, we reach the moment of truth. Who do we want to lead the country for the next three years? Gillard or Abbott? Labor or the Coalition? It is no straightforward choice.

It has not been an inspiring campaign; few policies or issues have captured the public's imagination. This is not 2007, when John Howard, for all his many admirable qualities, had clearly held on to power too long; when Kevin Rudd offered a fresh approach on climate change, reconciliation and workplace relations; and when whoever won would inherit a healthy budget balance and a booming economy. In 2010 things are more complicated. We have to pick between two untested leaders, who for five weeks have played an elaborate and at times dispiriting game of policy chess which has confused onlookers – as it was at times clearly intended to do.

A key independent MP says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott needs to explain why Treasury analysis has identified a hole of up to $11 billion in the Coalition's election promise costings.

Before the election the Coalition said its promises would add about $11.5 billion to the budget bottom line over the next four years.

But Treasury analysis given to Tony Windsor and his fellow independents Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter shows the Coalition's promises would only add between $860 million and $4.5 billion to the bottom line.

The Treasury document shows the Coalition has costings problems with its plans for health, education, infrastructure and its paid parental leave scheme.

The difference in figures also comes down to the Coalition making significant spending promises without saying which projects would be slashed to pay for those promises.

The three independents have now received Treasury briefings on the impacts of the election promises made by both the Coalition and Labor.

Mr Windsor says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott needs to explain the "black hole".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/3000068.htm

see toon at top and get ten points for spotting the difference...

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Coalition's ability to do a deal with the independent MPs has not been compromised by the release of Treasury figures which reveal a multi-billion dollar shortfall in his costings.

Treasury has identified what it says is a hole of between $7 billion and almost $11 billion in the Coalition's costings.

Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott say they want an explanation from Mr Abbott about what Mr Windsor called the "$11 billion black hole".

But this morning the Opposition Leader stood by the Coalition's figures which show it would add $11.5 billion in savings to government coffers over the forward estimates.

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

Yes. Tony, don't tell us where you're going to "cut the waste" from? Remember YOUR OWN RATTUS GOVERNMENT's waste? Billions on useless defence choppers... and much more waste, including USELESS wars and millions on "offshore boat people processing centres" who ended up in Australia nonetheless after a bit of delay. And your slashing of health budgets and your destroying of public right to university education by giving money for people to have many more kids (bumming your fluff of sustainable Australia...) while making sure they could not afford the exhorbitant university fees later...

And the list of this Liberal crap goes no and on...

The shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was not telling the full story when he said days before the election that the Coalition's costings had been ''audited'' by a big accountancy firm.

His claim that ''we have the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia auditing our books and certifying in law that our numbers are accurate'' helped shield the Coalition from criticism about its decision not to submit costings to Treasury.

Documents seen by the Herald show the federal directors of the Liberal Party and National Party would have been likely to have known the claim was untrue. Brian Loughnane and Brad Henderson signed a letter the day the costings were made public addressed to the Perth accountancy firm WHK Horwath confirming its work for the Coalition was primarily ''not of an audit nature''.

Within hours of the of the work being made public Mr Hockey inflated it to a legal endorsement, telling ABC TV ''they have certified our numbers based on all the information we have provided them, they have legal obligations and legal risks''.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/hockey-was-economical-with-the-truth-lib-poll-costings-never-audited-20101010-16e31.html

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

Joe was less than telling the truth or the full story... he was telling porkies the size of of his own girth... (and I am polite about this... I could have said his own ar&*%$)... see toon at top.

I expected more from Joe who basically is a nice bloke in the wrong political party and prays to a god who is so nice, hell does not exists... see also http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/8735#comment-11142