$70 million costings gap in Coalition budget

[mellie]

Garbage Mantra...

The fact that you trash Abbotts paid parental leave scheme though argue Labors is adequate (just fine the way it is) tells me you are opposing the party, not the policy, and why I say this is because there’s not much difference between the Greens Paid Parental Leave Scheme (PPLS) and Tony Abbotts.

Tony Abbotts is more in tune with the Greens PPLS than Labors, by far.

Have you even compared their schemes?

Coalition

Working mothers to receive full wage for 26 weeks, capped at $150,000
Stay-at-home fathers covered at the mother's wage
Scheme to be funded by a 1.5 per cent tax on Australia's 3,000 biggest businesses
Scheme set to begin on July 1, 2015
Scheme to cost $5.5 billion annually

ALP

18 weeks' paid parental leave paid at the minimum wage
Boosting wages of childcare workers by $300 million
Set up a Pay Equity Unit in the Fair Work Commission to drive higher wages for childcare workers
Replace baby bonus with a $2,000 supplement to Family Tax Benefit Part A
Freeze childcare rebate cap at $7,500 until June 30, 2017

Greens


26 weeks' paid parental leave with superannuation and full replacement salary up to $100,000
PPL to be paid for by a 1.5 per cent levy on big businesses
Productivity Commission to look into the overall funding of child care
Move to direct government funding of childcare services, rather than allowing parents to claim the childcare benefit back
Open more places with capital grants fund to expand community childcare centres
Waive HECS debts for childcare workers for each year they’re employed




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-18/y ... me/4894718

Note: The above is still rather scant on detail and biased, given the ABC fail to mention a number of positive facts concerning Liberals PPLS and saw fit to omit both the Greens and Labors annual Scheme cost.
I'll bet the ABC's April Chan is a Greens supporter, for it smacks of bias, but you get the gist of it at least, and it does demonstrate how Abbotts scheme is more like the Greens PPLS than Labors, by far.

Mantra, are you now saying you prefer Labors scheme to the Greens?
Or didn’t you realise that the Greens were actually endorsing Abbotts PPLS (with a few minor changes) before you shot it down?

[mantra]

Mantra, are you now saying you prefer Labors scheme to the Greens?
Or didn’t you realise that the Greens were actually endorsing Abbotts PPLS (with a few minor changes) before you shot it down?

I couldn't find anything in the Greens policy which said up to $100,000, so your information isn't entirely accurate - although you're right it does say 26 weeks paid leave. I assume it is at the minimum wage and it is inclusive of all women - even those who are on casual work or are unemployed - which is very similar to Labor's scheme, but might be a little higher as it includes superannuation.

What this does mean though under a Coalition government is that women who can't work for one reason or another will be entitled to nothing and that means it will create a major divide. They will automatically become a lower class of our society - the unemployed and the disabled will get the message that they are the dregs of society and shouldn't have babies. Abbott's policy is far worse than the baby bonus scheme, which at least treated all women equally.

[mellie]

Mantra, are you now saying you prefer Labors scheme to the Greens?
Or didn’t you realise that the Greens were actually endorsing Abbotts PPLS (with a few minor changes) before you shot it down?

I couldn't find anything in the Greens policy which said up to $100,000, so your information isn't entirely accurate - although you're right it does say 26 weeks paid leave. I assume it is at the minimum wage and it is inclusive of all women - even those who are on casual work or are unemployed - which is very similar to Labor's scheme, but might be a little higher as it includes superannuation.

What this does mean though under a Coalition government is that women who can't work for one reason or another will be entitled to nothing and that means it will create a major divide. They will automatically become a lower class of our society - the unemployed and the disabled will get the message that they are the dregs of society and shouldn't have babies. Abbott's policy is far worse than the baby bonus scheme, which at least treated all women equally.

Then why are Greens prepared to endorse Abbotts PPLS with a few modifications?

[mellie]

Further more.... Rudd destroying industry and turning skilled workers into public servants to mask unemployment figures is unsustainable and deceitful.

They are effectively dependants, blue-ribbon welfare recipients.

Their 'created' meaningless jobs are a burden on our nations taxpayers.

Hense our nations true unemployment figures wont be realised until the necessary cuts to the public service sector are made.

Sure, we could continue paying them a blue-ribbon welfare cheque each week, or we could "Get Real" and expose the rot for what it is.

Those paid from the government purse has risen 20,000 since the Labor government came to power, 2007.

And this doesn’t include specific groups being employed by organisations who are receiving extra funding by the government to do so.

[mantra]

Further more.... Rudd destroying industry and turning skilled workers into public servants to mask unemployment figures is unsustainable and deceitful.

They are effectively dependants, blue-ribbon welfare recipients.

Their 'created' meaningless jobs are a burden on our nations taxpayers.

Hense our nations true unemployment figures wont be realised until the necessary cuts to the public service sector are made.

Sure, we could continue paying them a blue-ribbon welfare cheque each week, or we could "Get Real" and expose the rot for what it is.

Those paid from the government purse has risen 20,000 since the Labor government came to power, 2007.

And this doesn’t include specific groups being employed by organisations who are receiving extra funding by the government to do so.

Don't blame the government for all our woes. Abbott is going to immediately sack 12,000 workers and their payouts will be enormous. Then he'll reinstate new workers to replace them and this outrageously expensive cycle will start all over again.

[mellie]

Mantra, can either you or Rudd justify increasing our tax-funded public service from 2007 - 2013 by 20,000?

[Aussie]

Thought you'd like to read some facts for a change, mellie, and then perhaps you can explain where you got your 20,000 from, huh?

In truth, the number of public servants has grown by just over 13,000, or 8.4 per cent, since June 2007. These numbers are not mine. They come from the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s State of the Service Report 2011-12.

[mellie]

Thought you'd like to read some facts for a change, mellie, and then perhaps you can explain where you got your 20,000 from, huh?

In truth, the number of public servants has grown by just over 13,000, or 8.4 per cent, since June 2007. These numbers are not mine. They come from the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s State of the Service Report 2011-12.

Garbage!

.....

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-me ... 0-under-l/

[Aussie]

From your own link, mellie:

Recently released statistics show that at the end of 2012 there were 165,598 working under the Public Service Act compared to 155,482 in June 2007, a rise of 10,116 or 6.5 per cent. If we had compared June 2012 to June 2011, the number would have been closer to 13,000.

So which number is correct: 20,000, 13,000 or 10,000?

And did the public service grow by 6.5 per cent or 5.4 per cent or 8.3 per cent? None of these percentages matches the rise in population which grew 2 million to 23 million, a 9.5 per cent swelling over five years.

If you look at pure non-military public servants the 10,000 is correct.

The military are public servants? Perhaps. But we suspect they view themselves as professional soldiers, a different species. Rugged soldiers do not seem to fit the bloated pen pusher mould that Abbott’s statement conjures up.

And including defence reservists, those with paying jobs in the private sector who spend their spare time with the military, is stretching the definition of public servant.

Our ruling

Abbott says the public sector payroll has grown by 20,000 since 2007.

There are multiple sources to work out how many public servants have been added since Labor came to power in 2007. And more ways to interpret the data.

Abbott has been specific in his reference to "public sector payroll", which would include most paid from the public purse, and not just those employed under the Public Service Act. The number 20,000 is also supported by the 2012-13 Budget papers. Of course, around 7,000 of those extra heads are from the military and more than 2,000 of those are reservists. Take out the soldiers and you have 13,000.

Yes, the 20,000 are on the public sector payroll. Abbott’s statement has mostly been taken to mean ‘public servants’ which is not correct. Military reservists are paid for their time but their main source of income is with the private sector. They are weekend warriors. If we subtract the reservists we get a number of 18,000.

We rate statements. Abbott's statement is accurate but needs clarification.

We rate this as Mostly True.

[Rorschach]

Mantra, are you now saying you prefer Labors scheme to the Greens?
Or didn’t you realise that the Greens were actually endorsing Abbotts PPLS (with a few minor changes) before you shot it down?

I couldn't find anything in the Greens policy which said up to $100,000, so your information isn't entirely accurate - although you're right it does say 26 weeks paid leave. I assume it is at the minimum wage and it is inclusive of all women - even those who are on casual work or are unemployed - which is very similar to Labor's scheme, but might be a little higher as it includes superannuation.

What this does mean though under a Coalition government is that women who can't work for one reason or another will be entitled to nothing and that means it will create a major divide. They will automatically become a lower class of our society - the unemployed and the disabled will get the message that they are the dregs of society and shouldn't have babies. Abbott's policy is far worse than the baby bonus scheme, which at least treated all women equally.

I saw it yesterday mel, Bandt said it...$100,000