Tony Abbott's paid parental leave scheme to begin July 2015
Jacqueline Maley Parliamentary Sketch Writer for the Sydney Morning Herald
Date August 19, 2013 - 10:54AM
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott meets with 4-month-old Sybil Taylor and Charlotte Taylor during his visit to a cafe in Malvern, Victoria. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Mothers who give birth after July 2015 will get six months' leave on full pay under Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's paid parental leave scheme, which will cost $5.5 billion a year including superannuation.
But Labor has attacked the policy as unfair, saying it advantages rich women and will be paid for by ''savage cuts'' the Coalition is keeping secret.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd walks with adviser Patrick Gorman during an early morning walk in Adelaide. Photo: Andrew Meares View all 14 photos
The policy, which the Coalition said will make the average working mother better off by $21,000, was released on Sunday as Mr Abbott, who used to be strongly averse to paid parental leave, met Melbourne mothers in a cafe.
''I am a convert. That's why I have a convert's zeal on this,'' he said.
His policy grants working mothers six months' leave on full pay, capped at a salary of $150,000. If the father is the baby's primary carer, he will receive the payment at the mother's salary. The scheme also applies to same-sex couples.
The net cost will be $6.1 billion and about half of that will come from the 1.5 per cent levy on taxable incomes over $5 million of the 3000 largest Australian companies. This will be offset by a cut in company tax, from 30¢ in the dollar to 28.5¢.
The rest of the money will come from ''associated reductions in other outlays'', according to the Coalition's policy document. This is understood to include income tax receipts on the leave payments, savings on family tax benefit payments and not having public servants ''double-dip'' with state-based parental leave schemes.
Mr Abbott said the business levy would not be permanent but he would not commit to an end date for it. Unlike the government's more modest scheme - which offers 18 weeks' pay at the minimum wage - superannuation will be paid during the Coalition's maternity leave plan.
According to figures Mr Abbott said had been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, this will amount to $50,000 extra in superannuation earnings by age 65 for any woman on the average wage.
Finance Minister Senator Penny Wong said the Coalition would make ''savage cuts'' to the budget to fund the scheme, which Labor says is elitist and unfair.
Senator Wong said the "associated reductions in other outlays" cited by the Coalition was ''code for cuts to services such as education, health and infrastructure spending''. But a Coalition spokesman said there were ''no savings or cuts from any other portfolio programs to pay for this policy''.
Senator Wong also criticised the ''pea and thimble trick'' of the Coalition's proposed business levy, which she said would be ''more than cancelled out'' by the Coalition's company tax cut.
Many within Coalition ranks are uncomfortable with the scheme, particularly Nationals MPs, whose constituencies tend to comprise more stay-at-home mothers than wage-earning mothers.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Labor's paid parental leave scheme had benefited more than 300,000 Australian families.
Poll: Which paid parental leave scheme do you prefer?
Labor's scheme 61% The Coalition's plan 39% Total votes: 6393. Poll closed 18 Aug, 2013
Vote now: Labor's negative ad campaign
Disclaimer:
These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
Daniel Hurst Federal political reporter Date August 26, 2013
.. lol, Katter is hilarious in the embedded video .. The odd couple Bob Katter and Clive Palmer see eye to eye at the National Press Club, promoting their policies and giving Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott a free character reference.
.. this not watched yet is from the same event, it's longer so not just a repeat ..
It was billed as a debate between two political mavericks but Clive Palmer and Bob Katter agreed on plenty of points when they faced off at the National Press Club in Canberra on Monday.
Bob Katter and Clive Palmer at the National Press Club. Photo: Getty Images
"Please, God, there are forces out there being unleashed and you are watching two of them today," Katter declared in a prophetic tone, his trademark hat perched on the table in front.
The first National Press Club election debate between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott two weeks ago was a bland affair. There was no risk of a repeat on Monday when Palmer and Katter rolled up to the same venue to argue the case for their fledgling political parties.
Katter laid out his classic pitch about supporting food producers, saving the manufacturing industry and mandating ethanol in fuel.
The enthusiastic storyteller recounted being approached by young men in the street who understood what Katter's Australian Party stood for.
"They punch me in the chest and they say, 'for Australia, mate'," Katter recalled.
Palmer, subdued in comparison, rehashed the appeal he made at the Palmer United Party launch on the Sunshine Coast on Sunday when he outlined an extensive plan to slash taxes and increase spending in a bid to increase economic activity.
"Prime ministers may come and go, but ideas go on for ever," said the self-declared prime ministerial candidate, banging his right hand on the podium for emphasis.
They may have set up separate parties in their own names but Palmer and Katter have a lot in common.
Both are former Queensland Nationals whose political strategy depends on clinching the votes of people disillusioned with the major parties.
Both are supremely confident of their ability to win seats despite all the focus being on the main clash between Labor and the Coalition.
And both used their appearance at the National Press Club to hit out at the media.
Palmer took a swipe at Rupert Murdoch for trying to influence the election “by remote control” while Katter pleaded for journalists to give the two mavericks a fair go.
"Give us a break, give us a fair go, because if you don't, you will break our country," Katter thundered.
The atmosphere was chummy at times, with only friendly jousting occurring.
"He's pretty right," Katter interjected at one point.
Palmer, conscious of the ticking clock, replied: "Don't take up my time, Bob."
"I'm cheering you, Clive," an exasperated Katter shot back.
When Palmer, who will only enter Parliament if he wins the Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax, was asked about the need to make MPs more accountable to their electorates, the mining magnate turned his focus to his debating partner, the long-standing member for Kennedy.
"Definitely, Bob should be much more accountable," Palmer said.
They insist they have some different policies and ideas, brushing off questions about whether their cause would have been better served by working together and not splitting the vote in target seats.
Katter admits, however, that a recent deal to preference each other over the major parties was a natural outcome. The arrangement "took about three seconds to stitch up", he said.
Perhaps one major difference between KAP and PUP lies in the access to money and resources.
Billionaire Palmer said the party had more than 1000 donors, and 100 people working full-time on the campaign. Palmer was coy about how much money he would personally pour into the election effort, estimating only that campaign bills would run to "many millions of dollars".
Katter said his own party had turned away some tempting donation offers, declaring he was "very very proud of my poverty, if you could put it that way".
.. so now you know .. lol .. Palmer is quite a guy .. LOLOL .. who knows .. maybe it's true, yet he has not provided any evidence that Rupert made that real discovery sooo late ..
Katter has been around for a long time .. Palmer is new as a political candidate ..
Here, we researched some of the new prime minister's most memorable quotes produced over the years:
• “Abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations.” March 17th, 2004
• “While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.” 2010
• “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” March 17th 2004
• “We just can’t stop people from being homeless if that’s their choice.” February 11th, 2010
• “Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.” April 5th, 2010
• “Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale, say, of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community?” March 17th, 2004
• “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up.” February 8th, 2010
• “The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.” February 2nd, 2010
• “I won't be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated [for cervical cancer], maybe that's because I'm a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won't be.” November 9th, 2006
• “I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question... [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.” January 27th “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” 2010
Abbott’s Ministry – One woman, no science, 12,000 jobs
We now know the make-up of Prime Minister Elect Tony Abbott’s new Ministry – and if it’s a sign of things to come, there are some features that may well be warning signs. For the most part, Abbott made good on his promise to simply remove the word ‘Shadow’ from his front bench. There were a few surprises, however, on which I’ll elaborate below.
.. excuse all these strange names.. hopefully we will all get to know some of them a bit better over time .. Australia and USA have old and close ties, as you know, so it's nice that we are able to get to know each other just a little better .. nice to be able to share here, too ..
Cabinet
Prime Minister – Tony Abbott Parliamentary Secretary – Josh Frydenberg Parliamentary Secretary – Alan Tudge
Deputy Prime Minister; Infrastructure and Regional Development – Warren Truss Assistant – Jamie Briggs
Treasurer – Joe Hockey Assistant – Senator Arthur Sinodinos Parliamentary Secretary – Steve Ciobo
Agriculture – Senator Barnaby Joyce Parliamentary Secretary – Senator Richard Colbeck
Attorney-General; Arts – Senator George Brandis
Communications – Malcolm Turnbull Parliamentary Secretary – Paul Fletcher
Defence – Senator David Johnston Assistant – Stuart Robert Parliamentary Secretary – Darren Chester
Education; Leader of Government Business in the House – Christopher Pyne Assistant – Sussan Ley Parliamentary Secretary – Senator Scott Ryan
Employment; Assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service; Leader of the Senate – Senator Eric Abetz Assistant – Luke Hartsuyker
Environment – Greg Hunt Parliamentary Secretary – Senator Simon Birmingham
Finance – Senator Mathias Cormann Parliamentary Secretary – Michael McCormack
Health and Sport – Peter Dutton Assistant – Senator Fiona Nash
Immigration and Border Protection – Scott Morrison Assistant; Assisting the Prime Minister for Women – Michaelia Cash
Indigenous Affairs – Senator Nigel Scullion
Industry – Ian McFarlane Parliamentary Secretary – Bob Baldwin
Small Business – Bruce Billson
Social Services – Kevin Andrews Assistant – Senator Mitch Fifield Parliamentary Secretary – Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Trade and Investment – Andrew Robb
Speaker – Bronwyn Bishop
Whip – Philip Ruddock
Outer Ministry
Assisting Ministers, plus:
Veterans Affairs; Assisting the Prime Minister on the Century of ANZAC; Special Minister for State – Senator Michael Ronaldson
Human Services – Marise Payne
Justice – Michael Keenan
The first, and most glaring, issue is the lack of women in the Cabinet. Out of 20 Ministers, there is only one, Julie Bishop, who stays with Foreign Affairs. In the Outer Ministry there are three ‘Assistant Ministers’ (positions that, under Labor, were called ‘Junior Ministries’), one Parliamentary Secretary, and one Minister – and, of course, Bronwyn Bishop is Abbott’s Speaker-designate. That’s still only 7 appointments out of 42 positions.
When it was in Opposition, the Coalition made much of Labor’s supposed betrayal of its commitment to relatively equal representation, both on its front bench and in its Caucus. Now in government, Abbott could only say he ‘wished’ there could be at least two women in his Cabinet, and mentioned his regret at losing Sophie Mirabella (who looks increasingly likely to lose her seat of Indi). He added that there were many talented women ‘knocking at the door’, but that in the end, he was faced with a wealth of talent and a dearth of positions, and reminded us that the Coalition chooses its representatives based on merit, rather than ‘quotas’ or any other system.
But how true is that? Take a look at the case of Senator Fierravanti-Wells. She was apparently talented enough to serve in Abbott’s Shadow Ministry, in the portfolios of Ageing and Mental Health. She has a strong background in law, was a Policy Advisor for the New South Wales Shadow Minister for Policy and Regional Development, and served as Senior Private Secretary to John Fahey, then NSW Premier. How is she less qualified to fulfil a Cabinet role – or even a Junior, sorry, Assistant Ministry – than, say, Luke Hartsuyker, who was never elected to state government (managing his family’s tourism business before entering federal politics, and then also serving as a Shadow Minister under Abbott)?
For that matter, how is Fierravanti-Wells less qualified to serve than Paul Fletcher, he of the ‘opt-out internet filter’ debacle just prior to the election? He kept his job as Parliamentary Secretary to Malcolm Turnbull, while Fierravanti-Wells was effectively demoted. Does that sound like a meritocracy at work?
Abbott says he’s ‘disappointed’ at the lack of women in Cabinet. This is enormously disingenuous. He is the one person responsible for choosing his Ministers, beholden to neither Caucus nor colleagues. For him to shake his head and feign regret about his own choices is inexcusable.
Oh, and just in case the message wasn’t clear enough – under Abbott there will be no Minister for the Status of Women. Instead, he’ll be advised by Parliamentary Secretary Michaelia Cash, when she’s not helping Scott Morrison turn back the boats. Or was it buy back the boats?
Then there’s the Curious Case of the Missing Portfolios. Where is Science? Housing? Mental Health? Ageing? Higher and Early Childhood Education? Disabilities? Resources and Energy?
Abbott had an explanation for some of these absences. He wanted to institute ‘title deflation’, he said, mocking the long Ministerial titles under the outgoing Labor government. For example, the Education portfolio would encompass Higher and Early Childhood Education, with specific responsibilities divided up as Christopher Pyne directed. Mental Health would be folded into Health, and Disabilities and Ageing into Social Services (in the Outer Ministry). Science, it seems, is to be ‘deflated’ almost out of existence. Abbott said that it would largely be taken care of by the Industry Minister.
On the face of it, these seem like reasonable propositions – set up ‘umbrella’ Ministries, under which similar issues can rest, with a single Minister overseeing all. Cast your mind back to the election campaign, though. (I know, I know, we’ve all tried to move on, but bear with me.) On several occasions, the Coalition emphasised the importance of mental health, including allocating significant funds for new beds, and programs such as Headspace. In fact, Abbott suggested that it would be one of its top health priorities – yet there is not even an Outer Ministry assigned to it.
Abbott also announced a number of initiatives aimed at assisting seniors, and improving aged care facilities. With his Shadow Minister for Ageing, Bronwyn Bishop, beside him, he castigated Labor’s handling of the issue and signalled his intention to restructure the aged care system. These are significant, complex initiatives, but again, apparently not complex enough to require the undivided attention of a Minister.
The situation is even worse with disabilities. The Coalition has promised to establish the National Disability Insurance Scheme, arguably the most sweeping reform in the sector. As with ageing, however, Abbott seems to believe that it can be handled by an Outer Minister responsible for the entire Social Services portfolio.
Then there’s Science. Of course, there is overlap between industry and science, but the two are hardly in lockstep. While industry looks to science for innovation, the processes of research, theoretical and experimental sciences are not necessarily driven by industry needs. Consider much of astrophysics, for example. There may be, eventually, practical applications for the study of quasars or the search for planets capable of sustaining life, but these are so far into the future that they are effectively unforeseeable. Even a great deal of medical science is exploratory, rather than focused on a problem-solving, industry-applicable approach. To be blunt, innovation and application depends on theory and experimentation.
And, of course, having Science swallowed up by Industry will take those pesky climate change concerns out of the equation. Or is that too cynical? You be the judge.
The decision to subsume important areas of governance into larger Ministries sends clear signals that conflict with the Coalition’s stated election priorities. That in itself is a huge cause for concern. There is, however, another consequence that may hold the key to why Abbott is willing to field criticism for these moves, and it lies in another election promise – to axe more than 12,000 jobs in the Public Service.
When asked how he would decide which jobs would go, Abbott spoke vaguely of ‘natural attrition’, a remarkably slippery phrase. Often, attrition occurs when someone retires and their position is not filled by a new employee. In this case, however, the new Ministry structure leaves entire departments without a Minister or a portfolio. Undoubtedly, some of the employees will need to move across (say, from Mental Health and Ageing to Health) – but there is no faster way to shed jobs than the kind of restructuring that will need to take place in order to put the Coalition’s proposed ‘streamlined’ and ‘deflated’ Ministry into effect. No one needs to be sacked – the jobs just don’t exist anymore, so sorry, thanks for your service.
So what do we have?
A Cabinet of 20 with one woman.
A claim that there are simply not enough talented women in the Coalition, which is nothing short of a slap in the face to a highly experienced former Shadow Minister.
A series of portfolios that have disappeared, with an unconvincing assurance that Ministers will make the right decisions as to how to properly oversee the issues they addressed.
A slaving of science to industry.
The groundwork laid for potentially thousands of job losses under the guise of ‘natural attrition’ and ‘restructuring’, all overseen by Senator Eric Abetz’s ‘assistance’ on the Public Service.
The Ministry is set to be sworn in on Wednesday. This, according to Abbott, will be ‘Day One’ – and we will, he says, see a difference immediately.
He’s right. Whether it’s a difference that will benefit us, however, is another story.
sooooooo .. Mr Abbott is off to a bit of a controversial start .. lolol .. haha .. go son! .. it will be interesting to see with so many areas of responsibility spread over different ministerial portfolios if/when hiccups occur just where responsibility and accountability will be placed ..
Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke has attacked the Federal Government's changes to announcements about asylum seeker boat arrivals, warning of a "culture of secrecy".
The previous government issued media alerts every time a boat arrived, but no new alerts have been issued since the new Government was sworn in.
The ABC asked both Customs and the Immigration Department whether any boats have arrived in recent days, but the questions were referred back to the Minister's office.
A spokesman for the Immigration Minister Scott Morrison would not say if any boats had arrived, and said further details about the Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policy would be provided soon.
"Updates will be provided on Operation Sovereign Borders. We will be making further comments on these matters next week," he said in a statement.
Labor's spokesman, former immigration minister Tony Burke, says the disclosure of information should be automatic.
"I have had journalists from all publications ringing me today saying, 'How do we find out?'" he told Lateline.
"They've been ringing the department and asking if boats have come and they've told them to go to Scott Morrison's office but Scott Morrison's office aren't answering questions.
"The policy, I thought, was that they would stop the boats not hide the information. My concern goes to whether or not they're wanting to re-create a culture of secrecy.
"It should simply be a matter of course that whether the news is good for the government or bad for the government, the Australian people are told."
Acting Opposition Leader, and former immigration minister, Chris Bowen says the government is being deceitful.
"This is a disgrace. Stopping the boats is not the same as stopping the press releases," he said.
"Stopping the boats does not mean not telling the Australian people when a boat has arrived. It's simple, a boat arrives, you tell the Australian people.
"Anything short of that is deceit and not being upfront about it."
Parliamentary secretary Steve Ciobo has told Sky News Labor's suggestions are "shrill" and "hysterical" and says the new government and the system will be transparent.
"This isn't a culture of secrecy it's been about 48 to 72 hours since the Government was sworn in, we've got a three-star general that's going to be there operating the framework, now whether you get the particular information from point A or point B does it really matter?" he said.
"What matters is the information is there that its transparent and that will become apparent in due course."
The Coalition's policy includes turning boats back to Indonesia, buying old boats from Indonesian fishermen and paying Indonesians to spy on people-smuggling operations.
A member of the Indonesian parliamentary foreign affairs commission Tantowi Yahya earlier this week said Jakarta has "major concerns" with the Government's policies and threaten to damage the Australia-Indonesia relationship.
Mr Burke said the Government will have problems implementing its policies which he says is "offensive to Indonesians".
"What I believe will happen [is]... they'll throw up their hands, make a lot of noise, they'll then do what they've already started doing which is not let anyone know whether or not boats have arrived," he said.
"They'll end up having to implement the regional resettlement arrangements that we started."
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has promised the Coalition's policies would "stop the boats" and would have an immediate effect once they were implemented.
While other countries fell into the global recession, Australia maintained strong economic growth, low government debt and a triple-A credit rating. With this record, you might expect the federal election to be focused on how to convert the strength of today's economy into resilience for the future. But instead the political spotlight has fallen on the perceived problem of government debt, with alarming proposals to bring austerity ''down under''.
For an American, Australia's anxiety about deficit and debt is a little amusing. Australia's budget deficit is less than half that of the US and its net debt is less than an eighth of the country's gross domestic product.
Most countries would envy Australia's economy. During the global recession, Kevin Rudd's government implemented one of the strongest Keynesian stimulus packages in the world. That package was delivered early, with cash grants that could be spent quickly followed by longer-term investments that buoyed confidence and activity over time. In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.
In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have also actually reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than the short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run.
Australia may have successfully dodged the global crisis, but some politicians seem to have missed the lessons it taught the rest of the world. In this election, the conservative side of politics has foreshadowed substantial cuts to the government budget. This would be a grave mistake, especially now.
Recent experience around the world suggests that austerity can have devastating consequences, and especially so for fragile economies. Government cuts have helped push Britain, Spain and Greece's economies deeper into recession and led to widespread public misery.
The youth unemployment rate in Spain is above 50 per cent and the figure for Greece is above 60 per cent. Their tragic experience should be a warning to the world. But even seemingly healthy Germany was pushed into a recession from which it is just now emerging - but it is an economy that is still weaker than it was before taking the "dose" of austerity.
Proponents of austerity ignore the fact that national debt is only one side of a country's balance sheet. We have to look at assets - investments - as well as liabilities. Cutting back on high-return investments just to reduce the deficit is misguided. If we are concerned with long-run prosperity, then focusing on debt alone is particularly foolish because the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenue and help to improve the long-term fiscal position.
Proposals for substantial budget cuts seem particularly misplaced at this time given that Australia's economy is confronting new global challenges. Commodity prices are softening and growth is slowing in many key export markets. Australia is already facing declining mining investment. The slowdown in economic growth is not the result of flaws in government policy, but of an adverse external environment. It would be a crime to compound these problems with domestic policy mistakes.
Sharp cuts to public spending over the next few years will exacerbate these challenges. Withdrawing government spending as the economy weakens risks tipping Australia into recession and increasing unemployment.
Assuming standard multipliers, cutting public spending by $70 billion from an economy the size of Australia's over a four-year period could reduce GDP growth by around 2 per cent and cost up to 90,000 jobs.
Instead of focusing mindlessly on cuts, Australia should instead seize the opportunity afforded by low global interest rates to make prudent public investments in education, infrastructure and technology that will deliver a high rate of return, stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.
I was in Australia during the last federal election and noticed then that the tone of the economic debate was both far too pessimistic about the current economy and far too complacent about the risks in the future. Three years later, the obsession with public debt continues to be a distraction from the more fundamental question of how to establish sustainable long-run growth.
Rather than look through the rear-view mirror at public debt, this election should look forward to the challenge of maintaining Australia's economic success for the future.
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics.
"You're a comedian": Vilma Ward tells Tony Abbott what she thinks of budget 2014
===
Federal budget 2014: Labor says budget built on Tony Abbott's 'act of mass deceit at last election'
--- .. please enjoy the Australian centered posts as a pointer to the fact that you are not alone in having to push back against very conservative Ryan-type budgets .. lol, the debate here now is actually quite invigorating .. note from the video inside ..
'Yes, the economics of the budget make a lot of sense' .. "At what price though do we have to pay to get the budget back into that sort of condition?" .. Ross Gittins, "Well, some of the measures that have been made to get it back are really nasty, some of them make sense, some of them are merely unpopular, some of them aren't just unpopular, they are nasty" [...] "suddenly we discover there is a nasty side to it all" ---
James Massola, Marija Taflaga Date May 13, 2014
VIDEO .. Budget 2014: economic sense, but nasty It's right to get the budget back into surplus, but some of Joe Hockey's measure are plain nasty, says Ross Gittins.
Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen singled out the $80 billion in cuts to education and health for criticism as he warned every family would be hit by new taxes and charges, while pensioners would feel betrayed.
Opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen: "The Prime Minister has broken his promises and now Australians will pay the price.” Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Mr Bowen said the government's infrastructure growth package was an "amateur con" and pointed out the small number of new road projects would be funded by cuts to public transport projects, while families would feel the pain of higher petrol and health costs.
The federal budget had been built on "the destruction of Medicare, and the end of fair and affordable higher education. It is a budget built on Tony Abbott's act of mass deceit at the last election".
"Tony Abbott said there would be no new taxes and no increase to taxes...the Prime Minister has broken his promises and now Australians will pay the price."
"Labor understands that in challenging times, budgets need tough choices. But these are the wrong choices for our future."
Mr Bowen said the opposition would consider individual budget measures over the coming days, leaving open the prospect of individual measures being supported, but said that unlike the Coalition Labor would be "guided by what is fair and what is economically responsible".
Greens leader Christine Milne labelled the budget divisive, brutal and backward-looking and suggested it had been "written in the boardrooms of Australia".
"Big business is quarantined completely as the community pays,'' she said.
"There is no vision for the future of the country. Suggesting that you are looking after the next generation, when you are ignoring climate change, when you're directing infrastructure funding into roads instead of public transport, instead of the NBN, instead of renewable energy sector."
Senator Milne said her party would attempt to redirect money that had been allocated to roads to public transport funding when it came to the Senate.
ACTU national president Ged Kearney echoed those sentiments as she labelled it a "brutal attack" on the safety net that looked after less well off Australians.
"This budget is a harsh budget, basically, if you are old , if you are sick, if you are looking for a job, if you lose your job, if you are young, this government is saying 'you are on your own'.''
Council of the Ageing's chief executive Ian Yates said "far from improving the pension system as the government claims", the changes in the budget to pension index arrangements will leave pensions "$100 a week worse off in 10 years".
"This is a massive cut to the income of older people who simply can't afford to absorb it.
"As a result we will see many older people slip back below the poverty line.
"What is missing from the budget is measures which provide retraining to older workers or address the needs of older people to have more flexible working arrangements as they age. The government will need to make these a priority long before the pension age rises."
Australian Council of Social Service chief executive Cassandra Goldie said the budget "places the most vulnerable directly in the firing line".
"The budget divides rather than mends. It entrenches divisions between those with decent incomes, housing and health care and those without them. It undermines the fabric of our social safety net with severe cuts to health, disability support, income support, community services and housing programs."
---
Poll: What is your view of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's first budget?
Tough but fair 24% .. Too hard on the vulnerable 70% .. Other 6% .. Total votes: 179252. .. Poll closed 14 May, 2014
Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
Australians protest Abbott budget .. Sydney, March in May: Thousands gather to protest budget
===
Thousands protest budget cuts in Melbourne
Caroline Zielinski Date May 18, 2014
Anger over budget cuts
Thousands of people expressed their fury over the federal budget in demonstrations around the country on Sunday. Nine news.
It was the biggest cheer all day and on a day when angry cheering was all the rage.
As more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the State Library on Sunday afternoon to march against last week’s federal budget - which promises to cut $80 billion from health and education spending over the next four years - the Greens federal member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, called for all parties to unite against the Coalition’s “savage” cuts, threatening to tip a deeply unpopular Prime Minister from office.
I was particularly offended by Mr Hockey’s suggestion that a $7 visit to the doctor is a beer. Actually, Mr Hockey, it’s cereal, and it’s milk.
“The Greens will block this budget … [and] if Labor and the Palmer Party join with us in an alliance for a new election, we can have Tony Abbott out of office by Christmas,” Mr Bandt shouted.
PHOTOS: Thousands join Perth's March in May protest against Abbott's budget
Monday, May 19, 2014
Tens of thousands marched against Abbott government in six cities around Australia on May 18. In Perth, Alex Bainbridge reports more than 2000 people took part. The photos below are by Bainbridge.
In a sign of the volatility of the new Senate, the Federal Government has lost a vote on one of its bills to axe the carbon tax, and seen one of its own senators cross the floor on an amendment to another.
The legislation that failed to pass would have abolished future income tax cuts brought in under the previous Labor government to compensate for increased household costs under a floating carbon price.
The tax cuts are due to come in for low income earners on July 1, 2015 and will cost the budget at least $1.5 billion over four years.
The Government argues that without the carbon tax, the tax cuts are not necessary.
But the Senate voted against the Government's legislation 40 votes to 33 with all but one of the eight crossbenchers siding with Labor and the Greens.
The three Palmer United Party (PUP) senators, Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir, Family First senator Bob Day, Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm and independent Nick Xenophon voted to keep the tax cuts, while Victoria's Democratic Labour Party senator John Madigan supported the Government's move to abolish it.
Senators Leyonhjelm and Day - who have agreed to vote together on most economic issues - say they have had an "early win" by "torpedoing" the legislation.
The tax cuts were deferred indefinitely by Labor in its 2013 budget because the forecast price of carbon was due to drop.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says the Opposition has voted against one of its own budget measures.
"We're very pleased that the Senate is voting in favour of scrapping the carbon tax," he told the ABC.
"In relation to the $1.5 billion new hole that the Labor party has blown into the budget today obviously we will now reassess on how we can best proceed in relation to those issues from here."
He has indicated the Government will bring back the legislation.
"I've seen the Senate change its mind, often within the same day but certainly within a couple of weeks, so let's see how this continues to play out."
In a later vote on an amendment moved by Senator Xenophon, pushing for a review of the rules for setting electricity prices, Queensland LNP Senator Ian Macdonald crossed the floor to vote with the Greens and Labor.
The vote was tied and so the amendment did not go ahead.
Senator Macdonald said he voted against party lines because the amendment "was eminently sensible".
He has also issued a warning to his party not to expect him to agree to motions to gag debate - even though he supported one early on Wednesday.
Ricky Muir votes with Labor to frustrate Government
Manager of Government Business in the Senate Mitch Fifield began the sitting day by moving that the legislation to repeal the carbon tax be declared urgent - a motion that would limit debate on the bills and bring on an early vote.
"I totally support the guillotining of this debate because it has been debated so long and so often that nothing new can come out," Senator MacDonald told the ABC.
"But my general view is that, except in exceptional circumstances we should not curtail debate."
The Government bid failed after crossbencher Ricky Muir voted with Labor to continue debate.
Senators have been debating the bills since they were reintroduced on Monday - the first sitting day of the new Upper House.
However, with the repeal all but guaranteed to pass with the support of PUP senators and other key crossbenchers, the Government wanted to bring on the vote early Wednesday.
Repealing the carbon pricing scheme was a key election promise for Prime Minister Tony Abbott, but his bid to fulfil it has so far been stymied by Opposition and Greens MPs.
After Senator Fifield tried to guillotine the debate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, accused the Government of trying to manipulate the Senate vote to suit the Prime Minister's media schedule.
"I utterly object, as does every senator on this side, to this chamber of the Australian Parliament being used as a plaything of the Prime Minister," she told the Senate.
"What an outrage that we would have the Senate being asked to gag and guillotine legislation so Mr Abbott can do a press conference tomorrow in time for prime-time television.
"It is an absolute disgrace and really demonstrates the arrogance of this Government."
Government Leader in the Senate Eric Abetz argued there has been enough discussion about legislation, which was debated and voted against by Labor and the Greens in the previous Senate.
"This package of bills has had 33 hours and 52 minutes of debate in the Senate and according to Labor that is gagging and guillotining," he said.
Vote heralds cry of 'Onya Ricky'
Greens leader Christine Milne said the Senate could not allow the Coalition to "ram through" the repeal.
"This is probably the most important package of bills for Australia's future," she said.
Senator Xenophon issued a "plea" to his fellow crossbenchers to allow debate to continue until Thursday morning.
"This is about the Senate doing its job," he said.
The Government move was supported by PUP senators Glenn Lazarus, Jacqui Lambie and Dio Wang along with Senator Day and Senator Leyonhjelm.
But it needed one more vote from the micro-party crossbench, and the remaining three senators - Senator Muir, Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan - all sided with the Opposition.
When the vote was held, one senator was heard to exclaim "Onya Ricky".
It is one of the first votes of the new Senate to demonstrate the flexibility in the loose agreement Senator Muir signed with PUP last October to act as a voting bloc "where it is practicable".
However, the deal has stuck in relation to voting against a multi-billion dollar budget measure to abolish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).
The Government announced in the budget that it would axe the $3 billion agency, which was set up under the previous Labor government to fund renewable energy projects and research.
Senator Muir and PUP have released separate media statements saying they will fight to keep the agency.
"I have been a supporter of renewable energy for a long time and I am very pleased with this outcome," the Victorian Senator said in a statement.
However, both parties say they will allow the government to go ahead with cutting the agency's budget. It announced at budget time that it would return $1.3 billion into consolidated revenue.
Debate on the bills is continuing with a vote expected today.
Topics: federal-parliament, parliament, government-and-politics, emissions-trading, australia
The royal commission into trade unions is a political witch hunt
If ministers have ordered the public service to pursue this anti-democratic frolic, it’s a clear abuse of power. The government is aiming for a union-free Australia
Tim Lyons theguardian.com, Monday 28 July 2014 16.04 AEST Jump to comments (406)
Attorney general George Brandis. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
A couple of days ago I was leaked a document from the federal attorney-general’s department. Reading it reminded me of the old gag: “just because you're paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
It’s a pretty extraordinary document .. http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/8288/AGD%20document%20into%20unions%20and%20Royal%20Commission.pdf. For one thing, although it’s notionally about the royal commission into unions, it goes well beyond the Commission’s terms of reference and seems to imply that any consultation with unions on public policy matters, and even negotiating a workplace agreement with unions representing public servants is somehow illegitimate. In other words, two of the core roles of unions as representatives of working people are somehow inherently corrupt.
This document confirms what the ACTU has said all along: that the royal commission into trade unions is a political witch hunt. It’s more evidence of the deep contempt the government has for unions, unionists and union members.
The ACTU has today sought access to correspondence and other documentation through Freedom of Information to determine precisely what involvement the attorney-general George Brandis or the employment minister Eric Abetz have had in this process. If ministers have ordered the public service to pursue this anti-democratic frolic it’s a clear abuse of power.
The whole thing is particularly bizarre given that the royal commission has shown no interest in the public sector and doesn’t actually need any help getting information if it wants it. Perhaps the government feels the need to run a parallel royal commission because of the disappointing results from the real one they established.
It’s not like the real commission is lacking in power. It has coercive powers to collect information and to make witnesses attend hearings and give evidence. The commission is conducting “private hearings” out of the public gaze. The government has given it authority to tap phones .. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00644. Many of the rules that apply in normal court proceedings don’t apply or are limited at a royal commission, including in relation to self-incrimination, legal professional privilege and the right to cross-examine witnesses.
But so far, it has precious little to show for the public money spent. An archaeological dig into some home renovations in the 1990s and a re-visit of matters already the subject of criminal convictions and civil proceedings have occupied most of its public hearing time. Untested and uncorroborated allegations have been allowed to make their way onto the public record without any right of reply, or serious examination of the facts or the motivations of those giving evidence.
The residents of the right-wing fever swamp on the internet who are following the process obsessively see unionism as a giant conspiracy against the national interest, and union officials as a kind of fifth-column. They are welcome to those views, as misguided as they are, but there is no basis for those views in our democratic institutions. The “scoping questionnaire” and spiteful rhetoric of ministers (Senator Abetz’s go to line is “union thug .. http://tinyurl.com/ky3hqsb”) is evidence of a broader infection.
We have, as the ACTU executive noted last week, a royal commission into trade unions which “appears to be proceeding on the basis of an antipathy or lack of understanding of the basic principle that a union is a collective, industrial, campaigning, political organisation of working people.” What’s absent is any sense of the purpose or function of trade unions, or the motivations of trade union members and officers.
At a deeper level, it seems to reveal a fundamental clash of world views. If workers are commercial providers of "labour units”, then collective action seems like a restrictive trade practice – and trying to take wages out of competition seems like collusive conduct.
Except we aren’t in a bad economics textbook, we are in the real world. Workers are real people living off their labour for wages, and labour law, unions and collective action are a modest attempt to even up the power imbalance of an individual worker and their employer.
Over the last couple of years, state and federal Coalition governments have taken every opportunity to hop into unions, using executive power, legislation and regulations. These governments have restricted or removed the rights of union members to organise, strike, protest, campaign, engage in political activity, bargain, take legal action, and access dependent arbitration. And, as the “scoping questionnaire” implies, the government even wants unions excluded from conversations about our community’s future.
This adds up to a pretty exhaustive list of things union members might want to do. And it’s a pretty good indication that it’s not just their preference, but their intention to see a union-free Australia.
Winning an election means you get to run the machinery of government. It’s not a licence to eliminate your enemies. Parties who take power in coups and revolutions are the ones who play that game, not ones that temporarily triumph in a democratic process.
What the trade union royal commission means for Julia Gillard
Date May 12, 2014
Anne Davies
insert-text-here Former prime minister Julia Gillard. Photo: Andrew Meares
Your name is Ralph Edwyn Blewitt?”
“Yes. I am,” replied the bald, middle-aged man sporting a tan and an impressive white beard.
So commenced the evidence before Royal Commission into trade union governance - a royal commission that threatens to unearth the ugly underbelly of practices in the union movement and disinter a scandal that has dogged the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard throughout her political career .
Documents tendered to the royal commission.
Over the next weeks former High Court Judge Dyson Heydon will hear evidence of misuse of members funds, kickbacks and bribes paid by employers to ensure union harmony, and slush funds.
Starting with a 20-year-old slush fund set up by officials of the Australian Workers Union’s WA branch might seem like warped priorities when more contemporary examples of malfeasance involving the Health Services Union and the Construction forestry Mining and Engineering Union have been splashed across the media.
The commission justified starting with Mr Blewitt because he was back in Australia from Malaysia.
But it is undoubtedly the most politically explosive due to the involvement of Ms Gillard in doing legal work to establish the slush fund, and her personal relationship as the lover of the man alleged to be the mastermind behind it, Bruce Wilson.
Mr Blewitt gave evidence that he and Mr Wilson, both then WA officials of the AWU, had been involved in setting up the Workplace Reform Association as a way of channelling money into a fund for union elections.
In 1991 Theiss, now a subsidiary of Leighton Holdings, had won the contract for the then biggest project in WA, the Dawesvill channel project.
The two men came up with a scheme to send invoices to Theiss for “false” health and safety services on the project, a scheme with which Theiss appears to have gone along.
Mr Blewitt said he knew this was a sham arrangement but Mr Wilson was “charismatic” and he simply followed his orders.
But the real interest in the inquiry will be around who knew what of the process of incorporation and who knew what about where the money went.
Mr Blewitt gave evidence that he attended a meeting in April 1992 in the Melbourne offices of Slater & Gordon, where the incorporation documents for the association were prepared. Ms Gillard was at the meeting. He says there was “some hesitation” about what to put down as its purpose, but Mr Wilson said it should be described as body devoted to promoting health and safety. Ms Gillard filled out the forms, but Mr Blewitt signed it.
The question is whether Ms Gillard vouched for the association’s purpose, knowing it was false.
Mr Blewitt has also been giving evidence this morning about where the money went. Mr Wilson had moved to Melbourne to assist with a factional tussle over control of the union. According to Mr Blewitt, Mr Wilson decided to buy a house – a modest terrace known as unit 1, 85 Kerr Street, Fitzroy, but it was decided to put it in Mr Blewitt’s name to disguise his ownership. Mr Blewitt says Mr Wilson instructed him to draw a cheque for $25,000 for the deposit from the Association’s account. Even though the house was bought in Mr Blewitt’s name, Mr Wilson and Ms Gillard attended the auction, he said.
Eventually $93,000 of the Association funds found their way into the house, worth $250,000.
Mr Blewitt also gave evidence that he often withdrew cash from the account and handed it to Mr Wilson.
Suggestions that it was used to undertake alterations at Ms Gillard’s home have been furiously denied by Ms Gillard and she has threatened to sue over media reports.
The media too is heavily invested in this inquiry, not least because Ms Gillard’s denials have cost at least two reporters their jobs.
Outspoken radio host, Mike Smith at 2UE, was stood down after he was blocked from broadcasting an interview he recorded with former AWU president Bob Kernohan. When he made his unhappiness known on air, management sent him on leave.
News Limited columnist Glenn Milne published a column airing similar allegations. After complaints from Ms Gillard it was withdrawn and the newspaper apologised.
How deeply the inquiry will delve into Ms Gillard’s role, if any, remains to be seen.
Ms Gillard did not seek leave to appear at today’s hearing, which means she will not be able to cross examine Mr Blewitt, though Mr Wilson’s lawyer did.
Tony Abbott’s debt to Rupert Murdoch. John Menadue
.. suggestion: think U.S.A with appropriate substitution while reading this ..
Posted on 09/18/2013 by John Menadue
Media Watch of 9 September gave us a snap shot of what Rupert Murdoch did for Tony Abbott. It said “the final tally of (the Daily Telegraph’s) coverage in the election campaign stacks up like this.Out of a total of 293 political stories we scored only six as pro Labor. While 43 were pro coalition. On the negative side there were just five articles that we judged to be anti coalition.While a remarkable 134 were anti Labor” That summary takes no account of the front page splashes that ridiculed Labor day after day. or the coverage by Murdoch’s other papers outside Sydney.
It would be naïve to think that Rupert Murdoch doesn’t expect a lot in return for his bullying of the electorate in support of Tony Abbott. Rupert Murdoch will want a lot more than he asked for from Gough Whitlam after the 1972 election – an appointment as Australian High Commissioner to the UK. I was the intermediary but Murdoch denies asking!!
Not content with ownership of over 70% of metropolitan readership in Australia, he will expect much more from Tony Abbott and not just running to the telephone whenever he calls.
Crikey and others have highlighted Murdoch’s likely calls.
* Control of Foxtel. News Ltd now owns 50% of Foxtel and wants the other 50% owned by Telstra. Watch this play out.
* News Ltd regards the ABC as a privileged competitor and a real pain in the neck. It doesn’t like public broadcasters and has made this clear in both the UK and Australia. News Ltd could pursue its campaign against the ABC by urging funding cuts to the ABC in the name of reducing unfair competition and providing value for money for the Australian taxpayer. This is despite the fact that the ABC happens to be the second most trusted institution in Australia, just behind the High Court, whilst the News Ltd outlets are the least trusted media in the country. This is not to say that the Canberra TV and Radio Bureau of the ABC are serving us well but that is another question.
* Open up tendering to enable Sky News to compete with the ABC for the International Television Service.
* New anti-syphoning laws to protect Foxtel and limit major sporting groups broadcasting their own content.
* Reduction in television licensing fees for free-to-air TV companies to help Lachlan Murdoch’s bumbling Channel 10.
* Federal government recruitment advertising to be shifted from online to print media to help assist The Australian.
After John Major’s surprising victory in the 1992 UK general election, the London Sun boasted ‘It‘s the Sun wot won it’.
This time the Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, Herald Sun, Adelaide Advertiser and The Australian won’t be as garrulous. But together with Rupert Murdoch they will expect from Tony Abbott big time.
And what about the journalist code of conduct that hopefully Murdoch’s employees signed on to..There is a deathly silence from them.
Tony Abbott to form on climate and same-sex marriage.
"The polishing of Tony Abbott"
Carbon emissions: Tony Abbott defends climate targets which critics say don't go far enough By national environment reporter Jake Sturmer and political reporter Anna Henderson Updated about 11 hours ago .. bit ..
Top 15 emitters
The countries mapped here are the top 15 emitters of carbon dioxide, according to 2011 data from the World Resources Institute.
China is the world's top emitter in total and of the top 15 emitters, Australia is the largest emitter per capita.
See how emissions levels compare, and step through the cards to find out what emissions reductions targets each country has set.
.. fwiw, if an election was held today Labor would form a new Australian government ..
L-NP support slumps following resignation of Bronwyn Bishop as Roy Morgan Government Confidence plunges to record low
August 10 2015 Finding No. 6387 Topic: Federal Poll Public Opinion Country: Australia
In early August L-NP support has slumped to 43% (down 3%) cf. ALP 57% (up 3%) after controversial Speaker Bronwyn Bishop resigned following a series of extravagant travel expense claims. Liberal backbencher Tony Smith (Victoria) has today been elected as the new Speaker to replace Bishop. If a Federal Election were held now the ALP would win easily. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6387-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-august-10-2015-201508100947
.. and Abbott would have gained the glory deserved by a one term PM ..
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
