If there was any stand-out from Joe Hockey’s performance on Q&A
it would have been his ability to permeate the studio with an
overwhelming odor of wealthy complacency, with weasel words thrown in
for good measure.
It was with considerable smugness that Hockey admitted that the GP co-payment, “. . .is a new tax – or a rabbit.”
“We didn’t say we wouldn’t raise any taxes. That’s
absurd because we went to the last election promising to introduce a
levy for the paid parental leave scheme“, Mr Hockey said.
Tony Abbott’s original argument was that this addition to upper class
welfare, and ‘signature policy’, was the insistence that the PPL was
not a tax; it was a levy. However, and currently in vogue and up until
Hockey’s appearance on Q&A, all was but a mere levy and not a tax.
The consequences of Hockey’s statement, is that according to himself,
both he and Prime Minister Abbott made deliberately misleading
statements, and on numerous occasions.
That is, “We did say we wouldn’t raise any taxes. . .”, (because) the PPL levy is in fact a tax.
It seems that the words ‘tax’ and ‘levy’ are bandied about by the
Liberal Party, changed at whim and to which ever circumstances suit.
Those who voted Liberal on the premise that Abbott would get rid of Labor’s “greatbig new tax” must be bitterly disappointed as we now have an even bigger, great big new tax. . .or series of them.
However, should we care to address the practicalities of this issue,
there is a world of difference between a PPL with a proposal that this
be paid by “a 1.5% levy on the biggest companies” and a $7 GP
co-payment taxed on GP visits, pathology and X-rays, and which would
further distort access to medical treatment for those on the lowest
incomes. This is akin to stating that the economic impact of the cost
of two beers to an old age pensioner has an equivalent impact as on a
business entity, and an extraordinarily wealthy one at that. Abbott and
Hockey’s insistence that they be ‘right’ – and all of the time, often
leaves logic in its wake.
In Abbott and Hockey-world, business being business and poor people
being poor people, it will of course be business who will be compensated
for the PPL tax/levy by receiving an equivalent tax cut
of 1.5%. Might there be any equivalent breaks for those having to fork
out for Hockey’s other tax – the GP co-payment? No of course not.
Hockey’s proposition that the PPL tax/levy is therefore equivalent to
the GP co-payment therefore falls so flat as to not only be just an
illusion, but could be counted as a blatant attempt at deception.
On the debt levy, will the the richest 3%’s contribution/levy
likewise put unreasonable pressure on anyone’s ability to feed, clothe
and house themselves? Doubtful, unto too ridiculous to contemplate.
The Liberals have gone to great lengths to ensure the wealthiest that
this is a very temporary tax hike. And what would it matter anyway? . .
.this cigar and Moët et Chandon tax will be easily be absorbed through multifarious untaxed lurks
– “superannuation concessions, dividend imputation, negative gearing
and family trusts”. Abbott and Hockey have now successfully reinforced
the image that to themselves and most of the front bench, that the
obscenely wealthy remain as they always have been, The Untouchables.
You can be assured that these changes (with the exception of the debt
tax) are not just for a couple of years, but forever. Along with this
decimation lurks in the background cuts to science, Aboriginal health
and education, with extreme pressure on the states to privatise almost
everything. And all the while the reaction from both Abbott and Hockey
is smirking disregard. Abbott “Dismisses concerns”, the headlines read
and this is apart from the lewd wink aimed at a pensioner forced into working on a sex-line as the only thing available to her. Any empathy? Any sympathy?
However, most perplexing was the ‘carrot’ offered by Hockey in the
form of medical research. That is, suffer now and one day if we splash
enough cash at the problem so that ‘we’, and where all other countries
have failed, will by some act of divine providence cure the world of all
of it’s ailments.
• $10 million from the Children’s Medical Research Institute and $12 million from the Millennium Institute
– one of the largest medical research institutes in Australia working
on cancer and leukaemia research, heart disease, eye and brain disease
and heart and respiratory disorders.
• $15.1 million from the life-saving Cancer Care Coordinators
program. Despite knowing that Australians in regional areas have a
lower life expectancy and find it more difficult to access life-saving
treatment the Government has decided to cut this funding.
• $6 million for Medical Resonance Imaging service at Mt Druitt, the cutting of the $10 million life-saving Queensland Cancer Package, $15 million from the Flinders Neo-Natal Unit, the $10 million Western Australia cancer team, and the $50 million stroke package.
• $3.5 million from the Biala Health Service, the only free sexual-health clinic in Brisbane.
• The Coalition will scrap the $100 million committed for the redevelopment of the Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
It seems that the Abbott government taketh with one hand to return
‘who knows what’ at some unspecified time in the future. Why would
anyone cut funding from medical research into things such as cancer and
childhood leukaemia, only to siphon it off to be paid to ‘who knows who’
at some non-specific time in the future? The cynic in me asks the
question, who is set to gain from this? Which multi-national benefactor
might it be? I believe that there are certain hints and clues provided
by certain photos of Tony Abbott and his ‘sponsor’.
The Liberal Party’s own website provides that the projected $20 billion will not be achieved until around 2024-2025.
“To establish the Fund, approximately $1 billion in uncommitted funds
from the existing Health and Hospitals Fund will be transferred into the
Fund at its inception”, which is supposed to be 2015-2016. But
wait a moment; hasn’t the Abbott government already cut an (estimated)
half billion dollars from existing medical research and services?
Hockey’s gushing at the government’s beneficence and commitment to
human-kind suddenly loses it’s rosy bloom.
But don’t worry, there is some good news contained in Joe Hockey’s
attempt at a budget: there will be more roads – well, in the cities at
least.
Appointed to provide advice to the federal government's financial system inquiry: Sir Michael Hintze. Photo: AFR
A London billionaire appointed by Treasurer Joe Hockey to
advise on Australia's financial regulations runs companies that have
repaid millions of dollars for exploiting tax loopholes.
Hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze is connected to the
British Conservative Party. Last year he approved the repayment of
nearly $43 million in a settlement with the British tax office after
companies in his CQS group used ''employee benefit trusts'' that ran
foul of authorities.
Sir Michael has a reported personal wealth of $1.8 billion.
His financial empire, elements of which have also utilised tax havens
such as the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands, reportedly generated
$154 million in 2011, but paid an apparently modest $55,000 in
corporation tax.
Sir Michael is one of four international business leaders
appointed by Mr Hockey in March to provide additional advice to the
federal government's financial system inquiry. He is recognised for his
philanthropic activities, but the revelations of his company's tax
affairs raise questions as to the appropriateness of engaging advisers
who have been involved in tax minimisation behaviour overseas.
A spokesman for Sir Michael, Michael Rummel, rejected any
suggestion that Sir Michael may not be suitable, saying his boss's 30
years in financial markets made him ''extremely well qualified''. Mr
Rummel said Sir Michael was regularly consulted by international
regulators.
The financial system inquiry, headed by former banker David Murray, is the first comprehensive study of the sector in 16 years.
It is scheduled to report by the end of this year, and is
tasked with establishing ''a direction for the future of Australia's
financial system''. The others on the international panel are:
London-based David Morgan, AO, head of
private equity firm JC Flowers in Europe and Asia-Pacific, and a former
deputy secretary of the Australian Treasury.
New York-based Jennifer Nason, global chairman of technology, media and telecom investment banking at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Hong Kong-based Andrew Sheng, described by
the government as ''a well-known former central banker and financial
regulator in Asia and a leading commentator on global finance''.
A keen supporter of David Cameron's government, Sir Michael
is the Conservative Party's principal private donor. As well he is a
generous private lender, having floated soft loans said to exceed $4
million.
Sir Michael is also a supporter of the provocatively named
Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose mission is to challenge claims
of anthropogenic climate change.
The foundation's website refers to the globally constructed
scientific body, the International Panel on Climate Change, as ''the
climatocracy''.
Fronting the National Press Club on Wednesday, shadow
treasurer Chris Bowen noted that his backbench colleagues would have
been especially pleased at his eventual arrival.
One of them would have been tapped to deliver his speech for
him if, as had already happened once that day, a second plane had been
denied a landing. The truth is, they’re pretty pleased anyway. The
problem was Canberra’s notoriously stubborn fog.
It's a pretty apt metaphor for the government’s position
right now: stubbornness, and fog. Not that Bowen was complaining. It was
hard to wipe the smile off his face despite the uncertain hours spent
in circular flight.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen at the National Press Club. Photo: Chris Bowen
It’ll take more than a few delays or a bit of inclement
weather to dampen the mood of a party that began the week leading by
double figures in two major opinion polls and finds itself suddenly
united around a common theme.
Advertisement
That theme is its opponent’s strategic error, or what one
senior Liberal told Fairfax Media was “the stinking carcass hanging
around the government’s neck called ‘the budget' ". Another Liberal put
it differently, branding Joe Hockey’s first effort as ‘‘about as popular
as a Polly Waffle floating in a public pool’’.
Indeed, Coalition MPs are aghast at the sudden depth of their
political dilemma and are already muttering about radical solutions.
Being discussed is everything from a humiliating retreat on one or all
of the budget’s most odious matters – think petrol excise, Newstart
changes, the pension age rising to 70 and the GP payment – to the
‘‘nuclear’’ option down the track of a leadership shake-up.
An initial period of calm immediately following the budget is
giving way to the realisation that economically it was at best
unimaginative and, politically speaking, it was deeply flawed. And that
in turn is showing up as criticism of Hockey. And of Tony Abbott.
‘‘The trouble with budgets," observed one relatively calm
backbencher, ‘‘is that almost by definition, treasurers have to be
extended a lot of trust by the party room.
‘‘Budgets are so complicated and when everything’s a secret,
then everything’s a front-page story, so consultation even with the
backbench is just not an option, it’s impossible – we just wait around
reading leak after leak, wondering what’s planted and what’s not, and
hoping like hell that when it is delivered, the Treasurer knows what
he’s doing.’’
And right now, as the government struggles to explain its
approach, many MPs are concluding the Treasurer did not fully know what
he was doing.
Even some of Hockey’s cabinet colleagues are joining in, with
one telling Fairfax Media Hockey had forgotten the politics and had
“bought” the Treasury line on some things. And they know it could have
been even worse.
According to insiders on top of the list of Treasury-inspired
decisions – such as the return of fuel indexation, the family tax
benefit tightening and the politically toxic GP co-payment – there could
have been added the reduction or removal of the diesel fuel rebate to
farmers and miners.
‘‘That would have led to warfare, and a rebellion from the
Nats," said one. Another said while Hockey had eventually told the
ethanol producer Manildra it was to lose its roughly $100 million a year
subsidy, his initial position internally was to keep the subsidy – all
while agreeing to hit motorists with a charge that is designed to go “up
and up and up”.
Bowen, who arguably fell victim to the guile of Treasury’s
enveloping logic in his few weeks as Treasurer, when he embraced the
fringe benefits tax changes for privately used business vehicles, learnt
a valuable lesson: remember the politics.
Whether the budget has permanently damaged the government is
too early to tell, especially given the variables. Hockey and Abbott may
yet be saved from themselves by an unco-operative Senate, which knocks
out the most unpopular aspects.
Time, too, will play a role if the economy begins to grow
more strongly as a result of policy changes and/or external factors,
prompting voters to accept the argument that tough remedial action had
been necessary. That is clearly the government’s hope.
But at present at least, it seems the budget has had a
corrosive effect on the Coalition’s public standing and a less obvious
but no less dangerous effect of both Abbott’s and Hockey’s political
authority in the party room.
Insiders say this was as much Abbott’s budget as Hockey’s.
Whereas John Howard rarely, if ever, intervened in Peter Costello’s
budget formulation process, leaving the expenditure review committee to
his trusted treasurer, Abbott attended them all, according to a source.
And he often played the leading role.
This, in the final analysis, may be the heart of the problem.
Where treasurers usually push for cuts and harsh medicine, prime
ministers usually play the counterweight role as politician-in-chief,
vetoing policy purity where the politics would be too hard. Think
Keating/Hawke, Costello/Howard and even Swan/Rudd.
Abbott, on the other hand, appears to have led the charge
toward fiscal battle, in effect egging on his economic ministers to
tougher action.
No wonder Bowen’s smiling.
Mark Kenny is Fairfax Media's chief political correspondent.
(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au) Abbott promised lower taxes and a better standard of
living, but he's now taxing the us into poverty so he can promise the
same lies in his next election campaign, writes Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks.
So, the budget has been released, and while Joe Hockey dances in his
office and smokes a fat cigar the bulk of us are left to pick up the
pieces of what were once our lives.
With all of the cuts to services and the new taxes and tax hikes that
were announced under some strange new titles like 'Temporary Budget
Repair Levy' that the government of no surprises surprised us all with,
there were a couple missing.
Usually when a government wants to increase revenue the first thing
they do is lift the taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The good ol’ beer and
smokes tax hike is almost a tradition.
So why not this time?
After all, there is a "budget emergency” we are being told.
Wouldn’t an extra few billion in income be better than $50 Billion
being ripped out of our health system? I would have thought so.
I wonder if the decision not to lift the taxes on smokes and grog has
anything to do with the Liberal Party reliance on the lobbyists and
donations from those industries?
Paul Nicolaou, you may remember,
has been called before ICAC recently as the Liberal Party in NSW
implodes over a corruption scandal the likes of which we have never seen
before.
Despite Abbott’s and Hockey’s reluctance to lumber their tobacco and
alcohol pals with a tax hike, prices will still rise on these items due
to the Coalitions budget.
The increase in the fuel excise levy will
also guarantees these companies freight costs will be pushed up and
this will end up being passed on to the consumer — as it will for all of
our groceries.
There has been a lot of talk about Abbott’s many broken promises since the budget reared its ugly head.
For those that were surprised by this, maybe they should watch the video below regarding a new tax as a memory refresher:
Tony Abbott and the Gospel Truth
Now we are hearing a lot about what Tony Abbott’s "fundamental commitment" during his campaign was — like we are the ones with bad memories.
Apparently, one of his promises trumped every other promise — and
that was to bring the economy back to surplus as quickly as possible.
"Look, there will be a lot of people, Chris, who will be
disappointed ... [but] in the end, the most fundamental commitment that I
made was to get the budget back under control."
Granted that was something Abbott mentioned during the campaign
often, however I don’t recall it ever being a solemn promise — let alone
a gospel promise.
There were four main promises that I recall which stood out above all else.
No New Taxes
Scrap the Carbon tax
End The Waste
Stop The Boats
So let’s look at these now suddenly not so important promises.
No New Taxes
When Julia Gillard implemented a levy to help out the people of
Queensland after a natural disaster, Abbott called it a tax. In fact
Abbott referred to virtually any rise in the cost of living as some sort
of tax from Julia Gillard.
However when Abbott introduces what he would formerly call a tax, he calls it a 'Temporary budget repair levy'. But no matter what Abbott and Hockey desire to call it, most of us call it a broken promise.
I also note that this – the only part of the budget that has the rich 'sharing the pain' – has the word 'Temporary' in
its title. Noticeably, there are no 'temporary cuts to welfare, the
pension, education or health — only the new tax for those on a
stratospheric $180,000 a year.
On top of the 'Temporary budget repair levy', we have a hike in the fuel excise. That is a tax rise no matter how you look at it.
Funny, I seem to recall paying a Medicare levy out of every pay cheque, which in my mind means I’ve paid for my medical needs.
As Treasurer Joe Hockey finally conceded on Q&A on Monday night
there are new taxes and tax rises in this budget — though he calls them a "rabbit". OK...
Anyway, this o-contribution” of Abbott's is nothing more than a sick tax.
Scrap The Carbon Tax
The Carbon Tax that Abbott promised he would “immediately” legislate
against still remains in place with no legislation raised yet.
By my calculations, we are around 28% of the way through Abbott's
term as Prime Minister and still what he promised to do immediately has
not come into effect, nor does it seem to be on the horizon as we head
towards the one year mark.
Given that Abbott has not included income from the Carbon Tax in his
budget, I have a hunch that he is glad to see it stay in place so that
the Coalition can sneak themselves into a surprise surplus on the back
of an outright lie just in time for the next election.
End The Waste
The families of the thousands of public servants who are now set to
lose their jobs may have a different view on waste, I imagine.
In fact, Government spending has changed little in dollar figures — just what it is spent on.
Some may see the spending on schools as a waste, but not me. Nor do I think securing jobs is a waste of money.
If the boats have stopped, then where did this boat come from? Coober Pedy?
Admittedly it does seem that the boats have slowed down, or perhaps
it is that we just don’t hear about them anymore due to the censorship
of information from Scott Morrison, who gets his approach to
transparency direct from North Korea.
Let’s, just for the sake of argument, assume the boats have slowed down.
I’m pretty sure if I were to tell a policeman that I slowed down to
40kmh when I went through a red light, it would not get me out of a
ticket and a fine.
Nor do I hear of doctors asking nurses to slow the bleeding down so
the patient bleeds slowly to death, rather than straight away.
That is because slowing and stopping are two different things.
Apparently, that was on an episode of Play School Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison must have missed.
Abbott has broken virtually every one of his promises related to the cost of living, welfare and the tax system.
One wonders how long until that promise is also broken, with $80
billion cuts to state health and education budget seemingly designed to
wedge the Premiers into demanding a GST rate hike.
If the Liberal Party really wanted to bring about a surplus that
quickly, why not just take all of their dodgy donations and backhanders
being uncovered by ICAC and put them in the countries bank account
rather than their own?
Abbott promised tax relief and a better standard of living for families.
He is now taxing us into poverty just so that he can promise us the same lies in his next election campaign.
The
budget has been handed down and the salesmen have hit the road peddling
their plan. The only trouble is they don’t seem to know what they are
selling.
Tony Abbott
told Melbourne radio listeners an average person would only have to pay
the $7 GP fee ten times and then they would be bulk billed.
In fact the government has put no limit on the number of times an
ordinary worker will pay the $7 charge, however, there is a ten visit
safety net just for pensioners and children.
The Australian Medical Association accused Treasurer Joe Hockey of
also getting it wrong when he says the chronically ill won’t be hit by
the $7 GP fee. AMA spokesman Dr Brian Morton said “He either doesn’t
understand or is misusing the statistic or is lying.”
LNP backbencher Steve Ciobo also told ABC radio listeners ‘if they
have a chronic disease they are exempt from making the co-payment”.
While it is true that Medicare’s chronic disease management item will
be exempt from the $7 GP fee, this is only for one doctor’s visit a
year where the GP plans the patient’s care for their chronic illnesses.
All further visits, treatments and tests will attract the co-payment.
A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey said yesterday “his comments stand”.
When asked whether the government would be introducing new chronic
disease treatment items exempt from the $7 charge she said “the
legislation was still being drafted…I can’t give any detail”.
So even though the details haven’t been finalised, this woman is sure
Hockey is right even though his own budget papers and the AMA say
otherwise. These people don’t like criticism and truth is irrelevant.
Look what happens when Andrew Robb tried to tell the truth after a previous budget reply – his staffer nearly had apoplexy trying to shut him up.
Mr Abbott told ABC radio that only students who start studying in
2016 would face potentially higher fees when universities can charge
what they like. But the budget papers clearly state that anyone who
enrols after May 14 will face deregulated fees in 2016. Only those who
were already studying on budget day would continue to have their fees
capped – and only if they finish their studies by 2020.
Education Minister Christopher Pyne reiterated this in a separate ABC
radio interview after Mr Abbott’s comments. A mother asked him whether
her daughter, already at university, would have to pay more.
“If that student stays in the course that she’s doing, she’ll
continue under the rules that she started. If she changes course, then
quite rightly she will face the new measures.”
A spokesman for Mr Pyne said the prime minister “may not have been as clear as he could have been”.
National Union of Students president Deanna Taylor wasn’t surprised by the confusion at high levels.
“I don’t think the government really put a great deal of thought into
their policy,” she told AAP, saying it appeared to be very
ideologically driven. “They’re trying to make us sound like spoiled
little brats who don’t know how good we’ve got it. They have a very
clear agenda,” she said.
Christopher Pyne is still selling his cuts to education as an increase in funding. Alan Jones,
while interviewing him on Wednesday, was astounded that despite the
education minister’s “brilliant” advocacy skills the “blockheads”
running state governments could not understand that the allegation of an
$80bn cut was totally wrong. In fact, Jones said, “there hasn’t been a
more monstrous lie perpetrated since Julia Gillard said there’d be no
carbon tax”.
Pyne somehow neglected to refer Jones to page 7 of the government’s
glossy budget overview which clearly states that the government is
changing indexation of state grants and “removing funding guarantees for
public hospitals. These measures will achieve cumulative savings of
over $80bn by 20024-25.”
David Gonski made an impassioned plea last night for the government to reconsider education funding from 2017.
Even the IPA
are sick of the lies saying the party which was elected promising to
reduce the size of government and reduce taxes, will preside over large
expenditure growth and is hiking, not axing, tax. The following is an
excerpt from Chris Berg’s article about the budget.
“For all the fire and brimstone that accompanied last week’s
commentary on the budget, the bottom line is simple: under the
Coalition, government spending is going up, not down.
This is the long-term significance of Joe Hockey’s first budget.
A modest 1.7 per cent real reduction in expenditure next financial
year will be more than offset by 0.4 per cent growth the year after, 2.1
per cent growth the year after that, and 2.6 per cent growth in the
2017-18 financial year (the end of the Treasury’s forward projections).
And tax? Well, while this year the government will collect $363
billion, by 2017-18 it plans to collect $467 billion. That’s a jump in
the tax take from 23 per cent of GDP to 24.9 per cent.
The most controversial policies (like the “learn or earn” welfare
changes, the increase in the pension age, and the university reforms)
sound like classic austerity measures but in truth don’t alter the
fiscal equation all that much. They’re social reforms being smuggled in
under the cover of a budgetary crisis.
And most of the big spending cuts to health and education have been
punted far into the future – beyond the next election, and many out past
the Treasury’s forward estimates.
The budget is also full of policies that superficially look like aggressive cost reductions but are in fact new spending.
For instance, the $7 GP co-payment is, astonishingly, being poured
into a huge new medical research fund. It will apparently be the biggest
in the world.
This is a bizarre decision. The policy case for a co-payment is that
introducing price signals will give patients a financial stake in their
healthcare choices. But using that money to fund an entirely new
government program makes the $7 charge look less like a co-payment and
more like a research tax.
Likewise, the reindexation of the fuel excise isn’t to fix the budget
emergency, but for new road projects. This is so Tony Abbott can live
up to his self-applied “infrastructure prime minister” nickname.
Abbott said in August, 2013 that “the only party which is going to
increase taxes after the election is the Labor Party”. It’s worrying the
Coalition now pretends no such commitment was made.
In opposition Coalition spruikers said Abbott offered two things: the
integrity Julia Gillard lacked, and the fiscal discipline Kevin Rudd
lacked. After this budget, what’s left?
Abbott is no Gough Whitlam-of-the-right. He has no plan to redefine
the relationship between state and citizen, despite his stirring oratory
from opposition.
Nor, contrary to Joe Hockey’s assertions, has the age of entitlement
come to an end. The paid parental leave scheme puts a lie to that little
fantasy.
Governments think election to election. But Australia’s fiscal problem is measured in decades, not electoral cycles.”
It is hard to know whether the government just didn’t read their own
document or whether they are deliberately trying to mislead us. A quick
look at the Prime Minister’s page suggests the latter.
“Over six years, Labor ran up a $667 billion debt on the nation’s
credit card. Every single month this debt is costing us a billion
dollars just to cover the interest bill.”
Net debt in 2014‑15 is estimated to be $226.4 billion.
Net interest expense in 2013-14 $10.952 billion
As an employer, I expect my staff to know what they are talking about
and they are required to undergo ongoing education to keep up with
current developments. If they tried to sell products they knew nothing
about, or lied to customers to make a sale, they would be receiving
their notice.
Tony, I am hereby providing you with notice. Should you choose to
leave before your period of notice expires, the nation will be eternally
grateful.
Who really wins and loses in the 2014 budget? This time last
week, we woke up to a new plan for Australia. Since then, the
commentators have combed through budget papers, experts have analysed,
and spectators have spoken.
The verdict is in: this budget
didn't just break government's promises on health, education, public
broadcasting and pensions - it will also undermine universal healthcare,
accessible education and discourage equal opportunity. It's a bad news
budget for the vast majority of Australians - creating an unfair burden
on those who can least afford it, while giving a free pass to those who
can.
Read on for a round-up of the best articles on what this budget will mean for you and your community.
This budget could devastate Indigenous Australians
Mick Gooda writes: from cuts to youth welfare to the new Medicare co-payment, the budget will have a profound impact on Indigenous Australians. Will the Federal Government speak to Aboriginal leaders before proceeding? Click here to read more.
This budget prioritises high income-earners
Ross Gittins writes: [Hockey] chose to focus on cutting three big classes of government spending: health, education, and income-support programs
(pensions, the dole and family tax benefits). Not by chance, these are
the programs of least importance to high income-earners. And while
slashing away at health, education and income support, he was also busy
abolishing the carbon tax, the mining tax paid largely by three huge
foreign mining companies, cutting the rate of company tax by 1.5
percentage points and exempting federal grants to private schools from
his education cuts. Click here to read more.
Student fee hike will force many women to pay more for education
Daniel Hurst writes: "Women who take time off work to have a baby face paying 30% more than their male counterparts
in interest on their university student loans, according to new
analysis of the Abbott government's higher education changes. The
proposed overhaul – which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate –
includes the removal of restrictions on the fees universities could
charge students, decreasing the public funding for each course by an
average of 20%, and increasing the interest charged via the Higher
Education Loan Program (Help)". Click here to read more.
This budget means students will pay more, and are more likely to accumulate huge debt
Matthew Knott and Heath Gilmore write: "University degrees will cost up to three times as much under a deregulated fee system, leaving graduates with $120,000-plus debts,
according to the architect of the HECS student loan scheme. Bruce
Chapman, regarded as one of Australia's leading education economists,
also warned that increasing the interest rate for student debts would
hit poor graduates and women the hardest. Click here to read more.
This budget goes hard on young Australians
Bridie Jabour writes: "People under 30 will receive Newstart and Youth
Allowance for only six months of the year which they will spend
undertaking 25 hours a week on Work for the Dole programs. The Abbott
government's first budget revealed job seekers applying for Newstart or
Youth Allowance, who have not been previously employed, will face a
six-month waiting period of no income support before they are eligible
for payments by undertaking 25 hours a week in the Work for the Dole
program." Click here to read more.
This budget puts our most vulnerable at risk
Lauren Wilson writes: "Almost a quarter of Australians on welfare are currently unable to afford medical treatment when needed
and a third are unable to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor. The
findings, contained in the Salvation Army's annual Economic and Social
Impact Study, to be released today, have raised fresh concerns about how
some of Australia's poorest families will cope when the federal
government's new $7 GP co-payment and changes to the pharmaceutical
benefits scheme come into effect on 1 July next year". Click here to read more.
Miki Perkins writes: "The Salvation Army has warned it expects a surge
in people searching for emergency relief if federal budget cuts to
welfare are passed, increasing the already significant number of
Australians living in entrenched and grinding poverty." Click here to read more.
This budget puts greater restrictions on people with a disability
Tessa van der Riet writes: "Changing the requirements for those on the
disability support pension, as announced in the federal budget, is "completely ludicrous",
says disabilities advocate Stella Young.
"The reassessment of people on the disability support pension is always
going to be a problem," Ms Young said. "It doesn't necessarily create
jobs in the labour market, it doesn't create opportunities."" Click here to read more.>
This budget keeps life easy for high-income earners
Ben Phillips writes: "My overall impression is it's not really sharing the pain,
the pain is largely going to lower and middle income families, and
quite fundamentally, when you look at the forward estimates to 2017-18.
High income families generally won't be hit all that hard, especially
once you get to 2017-18 where they won't be hit at all when the deficit
levy is gone. Click here to read more.
This budget spells trouble for rural Australians
Lesley Barclay writes: "People living in remote and rural Australia
already have a shorter life expectancies and higher rates of premature
deaths. Last week's federal budget will not only make that worse, it will introduce even more problems." Click here to read more.
This budget is bad news for the environment
Graham Readfearn writes, "The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
now has $600,000 per year less at a time when the coastline is the focus
of multiple new developments and facing an embarrassing "in danger"
listing by the World Heritage Committee. Not touched were subsidies to fossil fuel companies and miners, such as the tax credit that saves multi-billion dollar firms about $2.4 billion a year on their fuel costs." Click here to read more.
This budget will send us backwards on climate and renewables
John Connor writes: "If there was ever any doubt that the election of
the Abbott Government might slam the brakes on Australia's climate and
clean energy progress, it's now over. With the Government's first
budget, it's reversing at full speed. This is the Backwards Budget - a
budget that shifts the burden for pollution reduction from polluters to
taxpayers. A budget that slashes renewable energy agencies and
funding programs that are helping create the jobs and industries of the
21st century. A budget that rips hundreds of millions of dollars
away from climate science, international climate finance and clean
technology research programs. Click here to read more.
This budget takes a swipe at public broadcasters
Matthew Knott writes: "The managing directors of the ABC and SBS have
criticised the Abbott government for breaking a pre-election promise not
to cut funding to the broadcasters.
Treasurer Joe Hockey revealed in Tuesday's budget that $43.5 million
will be cut from the ABC and SBS over four years, with more cuts
expected when an efficiency review of the broadcasters is complete. The
ABC will also lose funding for the $223 million Australia Network
international broadcasting service. Click here to read more.
This budget will take money from secular services, and put it for religious services
Eliza Borello writes: "A school group says the scrapping of funding for
non-religious counsellors under the National School Chaplaincy Program
is doing students a disservice. Kylie Catto from the West Australian
Council of State School Organisations is unhappy with the move. "State
schools provide for a very diverse population of students, the current
program gives them the option of having a school chaplain or a student
welfare worker, we think that works well, giving schools the choice and
we believe removing the choice is inappropriate," Ms Catto said." Click here to read more.
The mental image of Joe Hockey in Marie Antoinette’s blonde
ringlets proclaiming “Let them eat cake” might prompt consternation or
an upset stomach, depending on your political persuasion. But with his
“beer and cigarettes” comments, he has in effect uttered the modern-day
equivalent.
It is thought the Queen of France never actually said those
words. Joe Hockey, on the other hand, undeniably compared the $7
co-payment for a GP visit to the cost of a pack of cigarettes and two
$3 middies of beer. In the same breath (almost) as he inhaled a cigar,
he also perpetuated the stereotype that welfare recipients were
layabouts who would choose booze and ciggies over feeding their children
or taking them to the doctor. They simply sprawl in front of their
flat-screen TVs, never look for work and watch the fat welfare cheques
roll in. Isn’t that right, Joe?
Mr Hockey, sitting in his castle twirling his ringlets, is
displaying an appalling lack of understanding of the way real welfare
recipients live. How would I know? I was one.
I grew up in public housing, my mum battling to look after me
on the single parent pension. Far from the stereotype, she didn’t have
six kids by several different fathers (I was an only child) and was
certainly not a teenage mum (she was 35 when I was born). She neither
smoked nor drank.
We also had all our own teeth, knew the difference between
''there'', ''their'' and ''they’re'', and had exactly zero friends named
Damo or Shazza. I could go on, but you catch my drift.
Despite my mother’s self-denial and strict budgeting, the $7
fee for GP visits would have bitten hard in our household. I was a
sickly child, suffering from frequent bouts of bronchitis and ear
infections that led to excruciating burst abscesses and a hospital visit
each time.
Mum agonised over every dollar that went out the door and how
best to care for me during each illness as it was, without the added
burden of $7 fees everywhere she turned. Giving up beer and cigarettes
wasn’t an option, so I’m not sure where she would have found the money.
Luckily, the petrol tax hikes wouldn’t have factored into the equation.
We didn’t own a car.
Sure, this is simply anecdotal evidence from just one family,
but I also saw how my neighbours, also on benefits, lived. Mostly, they
were honest people who were experiencing hard times and were doing
their best to survive and thrive under challenging circumstances.
I was one of the lucky ones. I went to university, escaped
the poverty cycle and now at 34 have a good job and a happy marriage. I
genuinely wonder whether I could have achieved that had Mr Hockey’s
budget been handed down when I was growing up.
We’ll never know, but I do know that my experience of being
on welfare was vastly different from the “beer and cigarettes”
stereotype the Coalition is pushing.
As for Marie Antoinette aka Mr Hockey? He can shut his cake hole.
The
The
