There’s zero public demand for fighter planes ...

 

Jeff Sparrow theguardian.com, Thursday 24 April 2014

Ordinary Australians might not care about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter acquisition, but the Very Important People do – and that’s what matters

Prime minister Tony Abbott tries out the cockpit of the F-35 fighter plane in Canberra. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Yesterday, the Australian federal government committed an additional $12bn fighting climate change. "In view of the scientific consensus, we’d be remiss to do anything else," said Tony Abbott.

Oh, wait. No, that money went on 58 new fighter planes, in the most expensive defense commitment in Australian history. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter acquisition would allow Australia to participate in future military coalitions alongside the US – the main basis, one would guess, for this extraordinary expenditure.

It’s common today to attack politicians as entirely poll-driven, devoid of principles and taking their direction from the latest focus group results. But that’s not quite an accurate description of how the polity functions, for there’s zero public demand for more fighter planes. "I want Australia to spend billions, ensuring we're in the front rank of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan" … said no normal person ever.

A pledge of an additional $12bn to health or education or infrastructure would have been wildly popular, yet that didn’t happen. On the contrary, those areas are all slated for cuts in Joe Hockey’s coming austerity budget – and, rather than condemn the defense spending, Shorten’s Labor party has thrown itself behind the Joint Strike Fighter.

The bipartisan commitment for the F-35 illustrates how political priorities are shaped by a narrow elite consensus at odds with public sentiment. Ordinary Australians might not care about the F-35, but the Very Important People do – and that’s what matters.

This morning, The Australian’s influential foreign policy editor Greg Sheridan announced a desire to be, um, reincarnated as a Joint Strike Fighter ("lean, sinuous, sleek, intimidating, the best in my class.") Yet even as Sheridan was running around the editorial offices with his arms outstretched, shouting, "I’m a F-35!" and making pew pew pew noises at Chris Kenny, the Oz enthused about what it called "the tough Hockey budget our nation has to demand". It declared:

Rules for receiving income support must be tightened; spending that people have come to take for granted, such as family payments, must be pruned.

Money for guns, none for butter: how to explain a combination that will palpably make life harder for most Australians?

Simply, among the elite, the commitment to the US alliance remains sacrosanct, despite Iraq and despite Afghanistan. The first president of the American Economic Association, Francis Amasa Walker, once wrote that a commitment to laissez-faire was not so much the measure of economic orthodoxy as the test "used to decide whether a man were an economist at all".

Likewise with Australian foreign policy. It’s permissible to argue the nation should have bought a cheaper fighter plane; it’s not permissible (and never will be permissible, even after Iraq), to suggest that we’d be a lot better off with no capacity for what Sheridan calls "interoperability with the Americans".

But perhaps the Very Serious People possess great strategic vision, allowing them to operate according to a longterm perspective not visible to the rest of us?

Well, let’s think about climate change.

Despite the fractious exchanges between the Bolt-driven denialists and their opponents, there’s an elite consensus there, too. Unlike scientists, the Very Serious People might be divided as to whether climate change is real – but they’re united in a determination that we shouldn’t make any fundamental changes because of it.

Had a reforming government pledged $12bn to, say, environmental research in the midst of a supposed budget emergency, it would have faced not only a rejuvenated Tea party-style opposition, but also a proliferation of broadsheet columns decrying its reckless extravagance.

The entire scientific establishment warns that we’re rapidly approaching global tipping points. But, alas, scientists have been demoted from the ranks of the Very Serious People, now that they’re saying things the elite doesn’t want to hear.

As Naomi Klein argues: "climate change is a collective problem demanding collective action the likes of which humanity has never actually accomplished."

In other words, it’s increasingly apparent that genuine action on climate will necessarily have an anti-capitalist edge – and no Serious Person wants even to discuss that.

The Iraq war killed thousands of people, and reduced that country to an authoritarian ruin. But spending billions preparing for the next pre-emptive invasion or overseas adventure is Very Serious in a way that preventing the ruination of the planet is not, simply because the latter threatens profits, and the former does not.

There’s zero public demand for fighter planes ... but we'll spend $12bn anyway | Jeff Sparrow | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Reserve Bank unlikely to shift from neutral stance

By business reporter Michael Janda

Updated Wed 23 Apr 2014

Photo: Economists say the Reserve will be left unmoved both by today's inflation numbers and the Treasurer's apparent entreaty. (Will Burgess, file photo: Reuters)

Today's lower-than-expected inflation reading is not low enough to force the Reserve Bank to change tack on rates, even if that is what the Treasurer would like it to do.

Yesterday, the Financial Review reported that the Commonwealth Treasurer has expressed displeasure to the RBA about its February shift to a so-called "neutral bias" - where the bank is leaving interest rates on hold with a view that the next move is equally likely to be up or down.

Coming off the what had been a long-term "easing bias" - where the bank flags that future rate moves are likely to be down - the move to a neutral bias has been widely interpreted by rate watchers as all but a declaration that the next move will be up, with the remaining question being when that move will occur.

This has been one factor that has seen the Australian dollar rebound against the US currency from a low around 86.7 US cents in late January, back to a recent high above 94 US cents.

It is this move in the currency that the Fairfax press says displeasured the Treasurer, because of the extra challenge it poses for Australia's economy in its transition away from mining investment-led growth to expansion in the dollar-sensitive manufacturing, tourism, education and agricultural industries, amongst others.

Whatever Mr Hockey thinks of this shift in the central bank's stance - and his office has not challenged the accuracy of the AFR report - BT Financial Group's chief economist Chris Caton says it is unlikely to change the RBA's position.

"Maybe these sort of things happen more often than we know," he said.

"My suspicion is the Reserve Bank may well say, 'Well thank you for your opinion', and go on and do exactly what it was going to do anyway - that's what it should do."

In Mr Caton's view, what the Reserve Bank should do, given today's lower-than-expected March quarter inflation figures, is to maintain its neutral stance and look at other economic and financial indicators, such as unemployment, home prices and the exchange rate.

He hopes the Government will resist the temptation to offer further advice to the bank, to avoid damaging even the perception of its independence.

"The view around the world is that monetary policy is best administered by a politically neutral, independent authority," Mr Caton added.

While today's Australian Bureau of Statistics inflation data for the year to the end of March came in well below analyst forecasts of 3.2 per cent, the 2.9 per cent reading is only a whisker below the Reserve Bank's 2-3 per cent target band.

The bank's preferred measures were a bit lower, at 2.6 and 2.7 per cent for the year to March, but still in the top half of its target range, and at the highest levels in just over two years.

Combined with soaring home prices - which are mostly uncaptured in the consumer price index - and strong employment growth over the first few months of the year, most economists agree that the RBA returning to an easing bias is highly unlikely barring a major domestic or international economic shock.

In other words, the next rate move will almost certainly be up but, if these sort of inflation readings continue, it may not be until well into next year.

Reserve Bank unlikely to shift from neutral stance despite the Treasurer's displeasure - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Inflation within target takes pressure off Reserve Bank

By business reporter Michael Janda

Updated Wed 23 Apr 2014

Photo: Petrol price rises were one of the biggest contributors to inflation. (ABC Radio)

Inflation has remained within the Reserve Bank's 2-3 per cent target, taking pressure off the RBA to consider early rate rises.

Economist forecasts had centred on a consumer price rise of 3.2 per cent in the year to the end of March, but the Bureau of Statistics figures show inflation was 2.9 per cent over that period.

Prices rose just 0.6 per cent in the quarter, below an expected 0.8 per cent, with much of the increase due to seasonal factors and volatile price movements.

Tobacco prices jumped 6.7 per cent in the March quarter, with an increase in excise.

Fuel prices rose 4.1 per cent as a short-lived dip in the Australian dollar combined with rising international petroleum prices to push the pump price higher.

Secondary (6 per cent) and tertiary (4.3 per cent) education both recorded strong seasonal rises, with fees lifted for the start of the new academic year.

Medical and hospital products rose 1.9 per cent and pharmaceutical goods increased 6.1 per cent, with the hike in drug prices largely due to seasonal factors related to the Federal Government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

These price gains were partly offset by a 4.3 per cent fall in furniture prices, a 3.3 per cent decline in the cost of maintaining and repairing vehicles and 2.4 per cent falls in the cost of both domestic and international travel and accommodation.

That left the Reserve Bank's preferred measures of underlying inflation at 0.5 and 0.6 per cent for the quarter, or 2.6 or 2.7 per cent for the year to March, well within the 2-3 per cent target.

CommSec economist Savanth Sebastian says the data show that domestic prices (0.6 per cent) rose faster than the price of imported goods, despite a dip in the Australian dollar for much of the period.

"Policymakers would be more comforted by the deflationary aspect of prices for market-determined services, with prices falling 0.1 per cent in the quarter," he observed in a note on the figures.

"It seems to suggest that the slower and weaker wage growth (which has been part of the economic landscape for the past year) is finally filtering through to a fall in prices for services."

AMP Capital Investors chief economist Shane Oliver says this is likely to give the Reserve Bank breathing room to stay on the sidelines for many months.

"The bottom line is that inflation remains benign, there's no pressure on the Reserve Bank here to quickly raise interest rates," he told Reuters.

"I certainly don't think there's enough in this to see the Reserve Bank reinstate an easing bias. The Reserve Bank can sit quite comfortably on its neutral bias."

The Australian dollar slipped from 93.8 US cents to 93.03 by 11:52am (AEST), as currency traders agreed that inflation was well under control for now, and there would be no pressure on the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates for many months to come.

Inflation within target takes pressure off Reserve Bank - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Medicare co-payment: Peter Dutton fuels speculation ahead of budget

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Updated Wed 23 Apr 2014

Related Story: PM's chief business adviser backs Medicare co-payments

Related Story: AMA criticises proposal for up-front GP fee

Health Minister Peter Dutton has fuelled speculation the Federal Government is poised to introduce a new payment for GP visits by indicating high income earners should not expect to see a doctor for free.

There have been reports the Abbott Government will announce a $6 co-payment for bulk-billed GP appointments in the May 13 budget.

The measure is reported to be worth $725 million over four years.

Mr Dutton has refused to confirm the charge will be in the budget but told a press conference "there's a lot of reform that needs to take place in health".

When asked if he could reassure people on low incomes, the Minister said there would always be a "safety net" in place for people who could not afford to pay.

"We will take care of those that can't take care of themselves," he said.

"But at the same time people on incomes like mine, or a reporter on $300,000 or $400,000 a year - should we expect to go to the doctor for free? That's a reasonable question to ask.

"I want to make sure that we can strengthen Medicare, but we're not going to do that by giving free services in the hundreds of millions each year in a country like ours.

"If we want to provide for people with no means into the future, then we're going to have to have an honest conversation about how we build and strengthen our system."

The Federal Opposition says it will fight the co-payment.

"A GP tax is the thin edge of the wedge," Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said.

"We will see people on fixed incomes, self-funded retirees, people over 55, poorer people will be unfairly hit."

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said there were concerns the measure would push people to go to hospital emergency departments instead.

"If you're trying to reform the health system, this is not the way to go about it," she said.

Medicare co-payment: Peter Dutton fuels speculation ahead of budget of $6 fees - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Coalition banks on blind faith in budget 'fix'

By Greg Jericho Posted Wed 23 Apr 2014

Photo: The need for budget repair is regurgitated by any LNP politician within sight of a microphone. (Dean Lewins: AAP)

Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott would prefer you just assume that "fixing the budget" will improve the economy without them actually having to demonstrate how, writes Greg Jericho.

Among all the talk in the run-up to the budget, the overriding narrative has been that "fixing" the budget is required to fix the economy. It's a narrative the Government hopes you take on faith rather than on evidence.

The budget emergency first related to the present situation of the budget. When this didn't fly with reality, the Government turned to the period beyond the budget estimates. This is where the ALP had apparently hidden all the blowouts in expenditure (even though expenditure in these years for programs like the NDIS and Gonski were well known).

Embed: Australian Government Budget

With budget deficits supposedly for the next decade and government debt growing, the need for budget repair is regurgitated by any LNP politician within sight of a microphone.

Certainly the ageing population and associated increases in expenditure and declining revenue base is in need of discussion. But the Government has gone beyond this to actually arguing that moving to a surplus will improve the economy.

Tony Abbott has articulated this view many times - such as when he told Parliament that "if you want to fix the economy, you have got to fix the budget first". Joe Hockey similarly claimed that "the bottom line here is that if we are to maintain our standard of living as a nation we have to fix the budget."

Behind such talk is the implicit belief that ongoing deficits are bad for our economy, and the debt is a drag on our growth.

And yet the link between government debt and economic growth is pretty skint. There is a plethora of evidence showing a correlation between the two - that increased government debt occurs at the same time as poor economic growth. But proving that debt causes lower economic growth is rather more tricky.

Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in 2010 tried, but after much trumpeting by austerity supporters around the world, it was discovered their conclusions were based on an error in their Excel spreadsheet. Indeed, one of the reasons the budget is projected to be in deficit is because GDP growth is not expected to be high like it was in the 1990s when the recovery from the recession powered the return to surplus.

Saying that fixing the budget will fix the economy is again confusing correlation with causation.

We are also told ratings agencies like budget surpluses. It seems we think more of ratings agencies than they think of themselves. Standard & Poor's lawyer told a court last year that "Triple A does not mean anything hanging out there as a concept," and that it was akin to Top Gear giving a car a good rating.

While it may be nice to have a AAA rating, the reality is our bond rates are driven by numerous factors and presently the difference between Australian and USA's government 10-year bonds yields (or interest rate) is just below the 10-year average: 

Embed: Differential between Australian & US 10-year Govt Bond Yields

Moreover, Australia is one of only eight who have a stable outlook AAA rating from all three credit agencies. So clearly the ratings agencies are not too worried about our budget emergency.

But even if they were, a AAA rating is a hell of a thing to put before the performance of your economy. And looking across the 14 nations that have a AAA rating from at least one of the agencies, there is a pretty wide scope of performance according to GDP growth, employment and budget balances.

Embed: AAA Rated Countries

So if it's not debt, then what? Abbott has suggested it is because of the ability to lower taxes. He noted that "you cannot fix the economy unless you fix the budget, and a stronger budget means lower taxes and more jobs."

And surely lower taxes do mean higher growth and more jobs? Well, yes. A study in the USA by economists Christina and David Romer looked at the impact of cutting taxes on growth by taking into account the context within which such tax cuts occurred. They found that a tax cut of 1 per cent of GDP could improve GDP growth by 2-3 per cent within three years.

Except they were talking about stimulating the economy by increasing the budget deficit through tax cuts. They also noted that government spending increases would likely have a bigger impact. Even worse for Abbott, they also found that in the USA, tax cuts did nothing to reduce government spending - and certainly this was the experience in Australia during the early-mid 2000s. They also concluded that "unemployment typically rose and output fell following austerity programs".

Moreover, a major reason why we currently have any sort of budget emergency is because of tax cuts already given. The Parliamentary Budget Office noted that:

"Over two thirds of the 5 percentage points of GDP decline in structural receipts over the period 2002-03 to 2011-12 was due to the cumulative effect of the successive personal income tax cuts granted between 2003-04 and 2008-09."

And the OECD data on the tax wedge (or burden) since 2004 shows that the people who benefited most from those tax cuts were high-income earners rather than those on average incomes:

Embed: Change in income tax burden since 2004 by earnings

Of course, some argue that tax cuts can occur so long as wasteful spending is cut by more. Except "wasteful" generally means "spending we don't like", or "spending the people who pay us to lobby/think tank for them don't like". Also government spending tends to worry more about inequality than does the supposedly more efficient private spending, which is not much of a concern to those for whom inequality is something that happens to other people.

A couple weeks ago the Secretary of the Treasury, Dr Martin Parkinson, delivered a speech in which he talked of our living standards and fiscal sustainability.

However, his focus on living standards was "weak productivity growth, a falling terms of trade, and an ageing population". When he attempted to link our standard of living with the budget he referred to the need to build up our reserves so that should another global recession hit, we could respond similar to how we did in 2008-09.

When he mentioned taxation he talked about the desirability of shifting the dependence from income tax to indirect taxes such as the GST more than about reducing our taxes overall.

In the past, the talk was of budget surpluses over the cycle - that when our economy was performing at trend or above, the government should shift to a surplus. Now the Government has moved to suggesting that shifting to a surplus will see the economy grow above trend.

At present Hockey and Abbott would prefer you just assume their "fixing the budget" will improve the economy without actually having to demonstrate how. Perhaps this is because it removes their need to talk about things like the GST and your blind faith will also make it easier for them to break their election promises.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. View his full profile here.

Coalition banks on blind faith in budget 'fix' - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Treasurer Joe Hockey warns of tougher means testing

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Video: Hockey warns of tough budget measures (Lateline)

Photo: Mr Hockey says the commission's report makes it clear the nation has "a serious spending problem". (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Treasurer Joe Hockey has warned next month's federal budget will introduce tougher means testing of support payments and more upfront costs for government services.

In a speech made in Sydney entitled The Case for Change, Mr Hockey began to unveil the findings and recommendations of the Government's much-anticipated Commission of Audit, which the Coalition is using to frame the May 13 budget.

The commission handed its final report to the Government late last month and the Treasurer will release it publicly next week.

Mr Hockey says the report makes it clear the nation has "a serious spending problem" and recommends "substantial spending restraint".

"Budget repair is going to require some difficult decisions, including winding back some spending that people have come to take for granted," he said.

"Means testing must become an even more important part of Australia's transfer system to ensure the sustainability of our income support payments. Support must be targeted to those in most need.

So if Australians ask themselves of the budget in May, 'What's in it for me?', my response will be, 'A better future'.

Joe Hockey

"More use of co-payments should be made to encourage some moderation in demand for government-provided goods and services. Nothing is free. Someone always pays.

"It is appropriate that those who use government services should contribute towards their cost."

There have been widespread reports the Government is poised to introduce a $6 co-payment for bulk-billed GP appointments, raise the age of the pension from 67 to 70 and address the growth in Family Tax Benefit B.

Mr Hockey says there will be numerous instances where budget decisions will be implemented over time, but has warned that "every sector of the community - households, corporates and the public sector alike - will be expected to contribute".

"So if Australians ask themselves of the budget in May, 'What's in it for me?', my response will be, 'A better future'," he said.

"I ask Australians not to judge this budget on what they get or lose today. This budget is about our quality of life for the years ahead."

Commission of Audit made 86 recommendations

Mr Hockey says the Commission of Audit has made 86 recommendations, some of which can be "actioned in the short term".

"Others will require further consideration, and some will be rejected outright," he said.

The report has focused on the 15 largest government programs and found they are also the nation's fastest growing.

The age pension tops the list with a cost this financial year of $39.5 billion.

Video: Economist Saul Eslake talks to 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson (7.30)

In a further signal the pension is set for changes in the budget, Mr Hockey emphasised that is "much more than we spend on defence, or hospitals, or schools each year".

"It is our single biggest spending program," he said. "So the policies must be changed, either now or more dramatically in the future."

He says the Government will continue to support the "most vulnerable" people, but says there will be an "ongoing and relentless focus on fiscal discipline".

Mr Hockey has highlighted the Government's plans to introduce a wage-replacement paid parental leave scheme and infrastructure spending as key measures to boost productivity and economic growth.

Child care and paid parental leave are listed by the commission among the top spending programs, at number 12, and it is the second-fastest growing with average annual growth slated to be 11.5 per cent.

The Coalition's new scheme is due to begin in 2015 at a cost of $5.5 billion a year, partly paid for by a 1.5 per cent levy on big business.

But the Opposition has slammed the scheme - which pays mothers who earn up to $150,000 a year their full wage for six months - and says it should be dumped.

"If the Prime Minister is so desperate to cut, he should leave pensioners alone and start with his extravagant paid parental leave scheme," Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said in a statement.

Treasurer Joe Hockey warns of tougher means testing ahead of Commission of Audit's release - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Joe Hockey warns aged pension is in the sights of budget razor gang

Lenore Taylor political editor

theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 April 2014

Bill Shorten accuses the government of 'cynically trying to soften the ground for massive cuts to pensions'

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the aged pension is in the sights of budget cutters. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Joe Hockey is warning Australians to brace themselves for a new era in which government services they have taken for granted will require a co-payment or be means-tested or provided by the private sector.

In a speech ahead of next week’s release of the commission of audit’s 86 recommendations for reining in government expenditure, the treasurer has made it clear that the $40bn a year the government spends on the aged pension is squarely in the budget razor gang’s sights.

The government has already flagged raising the pension age, over time, to 70, but in the speech to the Spectator magazine in Sydney on Wednesday night, Hockey signalled the changes might be broader, possibly targeting the large number of people on part-pensions or receiving government health concession cards.

“The $40bn we spend on income support through the age pension is much more than we spend on defence, or hospitals or schools each year. It is our single biggest spending program,” he said, pointing out that between 2010 and 2050 the number of people age 65 to 84 is expected to quadruple.

And the vast majority of over-65s receive some form of government payment.

“Of Australians over the age of 65, four out of five receive a full or part pension. If we also take into account the concessionary health card, then only 14% of older Australians receive no government payments,” Hockey said.

“And the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is the tenth largest category of spending. Nearly 80% of the scheme’s expenditure is attributable to concessional recipients.”

The seniors health card is available to pensioner couples with an income $80,000 a year or singles with an income of $50,000 but has no assets test.

But prime minister Tony Abbott is also insisting that the government will keep its election promises, one of which was “no changes to pensions”.

“We will keep our commitments, because the point I keep making, if there is one thing that we learnt from the fate of the former government, you cannot say one thing before an election and do the opposite immediately afterwards,” Abbott said when asked about mooted budget cuts Wednesday.

The government appears intent on resolving the apparent contradiction between Hockey’s signals and Abbott’s promises by phasing in the budget cuts over time.

“There will be numerous cases where our policy principles can only be implemented over time,” Hockey said in his speech.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, accused the government of “cynically trying to soften the ground for massive cuts to pensions” but predicted “pensioners will see through their weasel words”.

“The Abbott government created their own budget emergency, and now they are telling pensioners to pay for it. If the prime minister is so desperate to cut, he should leave pensioners alone and start with his extravagant paid parental leave scheme,” Shorten said.

Hockey also suggested the long term changes could be significant and would be spread across households, the public service – where sweeping cuts are planned – and the private sector.

“Means testing must become an even more important part of Australia’s transfer system to ensure the sustainability of our income support payments. Support must be targeted to those in most need,” he said.

“More use of co-payments should be made to encourage some moderation in demand for government-provided goods and services. Nothing is free. Someone always pays. It is appropriate that those who use government services should contribute towards their cost.

“On unemployment benefits, government should provide assistance that helps the jobless move into employment, rather than a system that traps them.

“The difficult decisions that will underpin our movement to a new age of responsibility must also include the corporate sector. Too many taxpayers' dollars have been spent on corporate welfare and too often previous governments have been drawn into areas that are better left to the private sector,” he said.

But he insisted that the government would not be cutting back on its generous and much-criticised paid parental leave scheme, offering women six months leave on up to $75,000, and the budget will contain an increase in infrastructure spending, with the government saying both measures are important to increasing productivity and economic growth.

Assuming personal income tax cuts to return “bracket creep” as taxpayers enter higher tax brackets, the commission of audit says that without a major shift in government spending Australia will still have a deficit of around 1.5% of GDP by 2024.

The government announced the commission of audit last October, headed by the president of the Business Council of Australia, Tony Shepherd, with the broad brief of “assessing the role and scope of government, as well as ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and in an efficient manner”. Also on the commission were former Liberal adviser and departmental head Peter Boxall, former public servants Tony Cole and Robert Fisher and former Howard government minister Amanda Vanstone.

The Labor party says the commission’s make-up means the government has effectively “outsourced the responsibilities of government to big business”.

Among budget savings widely discussed are a $6 co-payment for bulk-billed visits to the doctor, reducing or abolishing the Medicare Locals system, raising over time the eligibility age for the pension to 70 and changing its indexation to a less generous formula.

Joe Hockey warns aged pension is in the sights of budget razor gang | World news | theguardian.com