Q. Who would you trust most to handle Australia’s economy – The Treasurer Wayne Swan or the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey?

Trust in Joe Hockey to handle the economy has increased since the Federal Budget and trust in Wayne Swan has fallen. 28% (down 4%) trust Wayne Swan more to handle Australia’s economy and 37% (up 2%) trust Joe Hockey more.

Those on incomes under $1,000pw trust Joe Hockey 34%/31% while those earning over $1,000pw trust Joe Hockey 42%/29%.

Q. Who would you trust most to handle Australia’s economy – The Treasurer Wayne Swan or the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey?

32% trust Wayne Swan more to handle Australia’s economy and 35% trust Joe Hockey more. Men favour Joe Hockey 41%/34% while women are evenly split – 31% Wayne Swan and 30% Joe Hockey.

Those on incomes under $1,000pw favour Wayne Swan 34%/31% while those earning over $1,000pw favour Joe Hockey 37%/32%.

Jennifer Hewett, may I introduce to you a man by the name of A.J. Liebling. While Hewett may live in the world of the Fantasy Review, Liebling lived in the real world of media, where power and democracy often clashed.

Liebling, a long-time American journalist, observed quite correctly that, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

Which doesn’t seem to occur to Hewett, or she simply wants to conveniently smudge the truth. Today, she’s acting as the willing mouthpiece for The Empty Suit, leader of the Coalition, who is bent out of shape by the government’s inclination to make some modest attempts to preserve a modicum of freedom of speech. Hewett, on behalf of The Empty Suit, attacks Wayne Swan:

Add to that Abbott’s attack on government bullying for claiming Gina Rinehart is a “danger to democracy’’ over her refusal to endorse Fairfax Media’s existing editorial charter. Case closed apparently. It’s surely in the public interest to have greater controls on media “bias’’, on institutionalising the ability to demand corrections and on who gets to own media outlets to pursue their own agendas. Hear, hear, Wayne. [emphasis added]

Wait just a minute. Who is the burden on exactly? Wayne Swan and the government? Or Gina Rinehart? Recall, as we discussed a number of times, even Malcom Turnbull was on the side of the position that Rinehart had to sign the editorial independence charter:

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull also said the board’s reluctance to give Mrs Rinehart board seats was understandable ”without a commitment to supporting editorial independence . . . If Fairfax, for example, were seen to be a mouthpiece of Gina Rinehart and a ‘spokes vehicle’ for the mining industry that would undermine its business model dramatically.”

Rinehart cannot even agree to a basic requirement to adhere to a code that has been broadly accepted, the questions should be aimed at her motivations, not Wayne Swan’s motivations. But, in the world of the Fantasy Review, reality plays a very small role.
— Jonathan Tasini
@jonathantasini

Who knew? Wayne Swan hearts Bruce Springsteen. But, the main point here: Swan is singing the right tune.

The poor folks at the Fin Review are wringing their hands over Swan’s new digs at the wealthy and the powerful (subscription needed) :

Acting Prime Minister Wayne Swan will ramp up his verbal attacks on Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest today by accusing them of using their wealth to treat the courts, Parliament, and the media as personal playthings.

In a speech lauding the political messages of US rock star Bruce Springsteen, Mr Swan will argue the billionaires have run “blatantly self-interested” campaigns since he accused them in March of threatening Australia’s “fair go” ethos.

“One tycoon is using his money to challenge the principle of fair taxation through electioneering; a second is using his money to challenge it through the courts; and a third is using her money to challenge it by undermining independent journalism,” Mr Swan will say.

The comments are likely to reignite debate about whether the Gillard government is more focused on wealth distribution than wealth creation, and suggest Mr Swan is worried about the party’s loss of its traditional working class support base.

What we love about this is that the journalist, not surprisingly, doesn’t bother to observe — because he isn’t capable of either grasping this fact or isn’t free to actually write it — that Swan is right on the money. The Palmer-Reinhart-Forrest trio, along with other extremely wealthy people, do not care about the future of the country. As I pointed out yesterday, this is a matter of priorities: do you want to make the country healthy, prosperous for all and fair, or, as one mining baron has just done, are you more interested in buying an exclusive home in Singapore.

Instead, it is an entirely false, if predictable, premise to counterpose, as the Fin Review writer does, “Wealth distribution” and “wealth creation”. I could write a treatise on this (for example, pointing out how putting more money in peoples’ hands through wealth distribution creates more wealth by giving people the ability to purchase goods) but let’s just consider one point I made last week: investing in the National Disability Insurance Scheme–which requires public funds investment, which, by definition, is wealth distribution — actually will create billions of dollars MORE in wealth over the coming decades. So, actually, economically, factually, wealth distribution creates more wealth.

I hope Swan keeps singing this tune. The Prime Minister, I think, made a real impression on the public with her steadfast defense of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and her staring down of recalcitrant state premiers who didn’t particularly think much of looking after the rights of the disabled. People want to hear truths that connect with what they see happening. Admittedly, sometimes the electoral benefits might either be slow to catch up or do not align right away. But, I think voters reward people who are truthful and courageous.

When Wayne Swan attacked mining magnates for undermining Australia’s national interests in pursuit of their own ends it created a storm of controversy.

Yet the mining magnates haven’t been shy about opposing the mining tax and climate change policy.

And now Clive Palmer is running for office, Gina Rinehart has bought big into Fairfax and Twiggy Forrest is challenging the mining tax in the High Court.

CFMEU National President Tony Maher wants our mining magnates to concentrate less on their billions and more on using their wealth to improve Australia. Find out about the CFMEU’s ad campaign here.

He wonders whether Australia will ever have a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates fighting for the rights of many rather than the rights of a few.

Or will the billionaires soon be launching their own campaign to save themselves?

Q. Who would you trust most to handle Australia’s economy – the Treasurer Wayne Swan or the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey?

34% would trust Wayne Swan most to handle the economy and 33% would trust Joe Hockey most. 33% could not give an opinion.

Those aged under 35 trust Wayne Swan more (32%/21%) and those aged 55+ trust Joe Hockey more (47%/31%).

Comments »

Q. Which of the following do you think would make the best leader of the Labor Party?

33% think Kevin Rudd would make the best leader of the Labor Party and 16% prefer Julia Gillard. This represents  declines of 1% for Kevin Rudd and 7% for Julia Gillard since this question was asked nearly 12 months ago. Those selecting “someone else” has increased from 19% to 23%.

Julia Gillard is preferred by 40% of Labor voters compared to 33% for Kevin Rudd. Men prefer Kevin Rudd over Julia Gillard 33% to 16% and women by 28% to 17%.

Comments »

QA. The Treasurer Wayne Swan has said some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals are using their wealth to try to influence public opinion and government policy to further their own commercial interests. Do you agree or disagree with the Treasurer’s statement? *

QB. Do you agree or disagree that some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals are using their wealth to try to influence public opinion and government policy to further their own commercial interests. *

* each question was asked of half the total sample.

There was similar majority agreement with this statement – that some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals are using their wealth to try to influence public opinion and government policy to further their own commercial interests – whether or not it was attributed to Wayne Swan. When attributed to Wayne Swan 58% agreed and 26% disagreed. When unattributed, 60% agreed and 24% disagreed.

When attributed to Wayne Swan, 78% of Labor voters and 89% of Greens voters agreed but 51% of Liberal/National voters disagreed.

When unattributed, a majority of voters of all parties agreed – although Labor and Greens voters not as strongly.

Comments »