Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
So_Cynical said:
I remember i was happy back when the Carbon tax legislation was first passed and so now im a little sad...looking back i was happy in 1998 when John Howard launched the Aust Greenhouse office and stumped up half a billion in funding, and then sad when he pulled the plug 6 years later once he didn't need the senate support of the Aust democrats.

I remember i was happy when Turnbull backed Rudds CPRS and if it wasn't for 1 lousy Liberal party room vote it may very well have got thru without the Greens support, then sad when the Greens blocked Rudds CPRS...fact is that its an absolute certainty that i will be happy once again in the not to far distant future. :)

The inevitable will not be denied, just such a shame and waste of time and money to be taken one step back by the Coalition every time that Labor takes us 2 steps forward.
Click to expand...

Just be honest for once and tell the rest of the Howard proposal.

Howard agreed to an ETS provided the rest of the world went that way.
 
Yes Tony, investors are going to flood in Australia to turn us into a coal producing energy super power
 

Attachments

  • coal.PNG
    coal.PNG
    180.8 KB · Views: 165
So Eric Abetz believes the Senate has caused too much red tape in relation to asset recyling program.

What is causing this red tape?

Well the Senate has asked that a CBA be done for any privatisation over $100M. Considering this was a (broken) promise by Abbott for Govt funding prior to the election (admittedly not in relation to the asset recycling program but seems reasonable for moving public assets into the private sector) so I'm not sure why he's so against this.

Then there's a second check ont eh Govt with the Senate being able to veto asset recycling payments to the states.

The only reason I can see the Govt would be against this is that they wont so easily be able to roll out the pork barrel.

There's plenty of bad examples for privatisations of public assets, so it's good to see the Senate trying to avoid these. It's just an ideological assumption that the private sector is ALWAYS the best option.
 
Poor Tony. Joe's let everyone in on the secret that the PPL scheme was really not even good enough to be written on a paper napkin, released to uncle Rup early to organise press releases, and he still doesn't get why people don't think it's a good idea.

How much longer can Abbott remain pig headed on how little support his signature policy has :confused: It feels like he's held on so long now he feels that giving it up would be too big a loss.

Maybe the PC has summed it up best - http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare/draft/key-points

The Commission considers that it is unclear that the proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme ”” which is more generous than the existing scheme and that recommended in the Commission’s 2009 report on paid parental leave ”” would bring significant additional benefits to the broader community beyond those occurring under the existing scheme. There may be a case, therefore, for diverting some funding from the proposed new scheme to another area of government funding, such as ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care], where more significant family benefits are likely. Such a move could add up to a further $1.5 billion per year to Australian Government assistance for ECEC.

…the workforce participation of mothers of children aged under 15 years is affected by the costs and availability of suitable childcare.
 
sydboy007 said:
Poor Tony. Joe's let everyone in on the secret that the PPL scheme was really not even good enough to be written on a paper napkin, released to uncle Rup early to organise press releases, and he still doesn't get why people don't think it's a good idea.

How much longer can Abbott remain pig headed on how little support his signature policy has :confused: It feels like he's held on so long now he feels that giving it up would be too big a loss.

Maybe the PC has summed it up best - http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare/draft/key-points

The Commission considers that it is unclear that the proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme ”” which is more generous than the existing scheme and that recommended in the Commission’s 2009 report on paid parental leave ”” would bring significant additional benefits to the broader community beyond those occurring under the existing scheme. There may be a case, therefore, for diverting some funding from the proposed new scheme to another area of government funding, such as ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care], where more significant family benefits are likely. Such a move could add up to a further $1.5 billion per year to Australian Government assistance for ECEC.

…the workforce participation of mothers of children aged under 15 years is affected by the costs and availability of suitable childcare.
Click to expand...

No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.
 
noco said:
No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.
Click to expand...

Why? In a country where workers and employers negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment if they've agreed to some form of PPL then why are you so against it? Or you're only against it when it's public servants and politicians, but have no issue when it's for private sector employees? Back in 2011-12 over 51% of employers provided some form of PPL. Even the ASX provides PPL. 3 of the 4 main banks provide it, as does caltex, hsbc, ioof, alcoa, iag.
 
noco said:
No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?
 
ChrisJH said:
I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?
Click to expand...

Apparently they are running the entire collective of any one who didn't vote for or worship the new god known as "Abbott"


Another thing don't turn up here quoting facts or else you will be branded "ABC leftest"
 
sydboy007 said:
Why? In a country where workers and employers negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment if they've agreed to some form of PPL then why are you so against it? Or you're only against it when it's public servants and politicians, but have no issue when it's for private sector employees? Back in 2011-12 over 51% of employers provided some form of PPL. Even the ASX provides PPL. 3 of the 4 main banks provide it, as does caltex, hsbc, ioof, alcoa, iag.
Click to expand...

I have always been opposed to PPL.....the reason being :-

a) it is not equal to all employees whether private enterprise or Government public servants.....there should be one system if there is to one at all.

b) what about the stay at homes Mums?....they are not even considered.
 
ChrisJH said:
I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?
Click to expand...

Chris, the Fabian Society has nothing to with the Abbott Government but is has plenty to do with shaping of the Green/Labor coalition.

Julia Gillard, Chris Bowen, Jenny Macklin and any on the left wing of the Labor Party plus all the Greens are members of the Fabian Society (communism).

I have posted this link on two previous threads and here it is again for you in case you missed it.


http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/ 25/06/2014 5 KB
 
noco said:
I have always been opposed to PPL.....the reason being :-

a) it is not equal to all employees whether private enterprise or Government public servants.....there should be one system if there is to one at all.

b) what about the stay at homes Mums?....they are not even considered.
Click to expand...

So you believe PPL should be outlawed, or in Howard / Costello speak prohibited content of a workplace agreement?

Seriously, you sound more like a communist every day. 1 type of toothpaste, 1 type of PPL.

Solve housing affordability, you'll solve child care and PPL costs, and get a free work life balance improvement. Considering the below is the view of your leaders, I don't see any meaningful reform to help with this, hence why we have these bandaid solutions like billions spent on childcare and PPL.

Rising house prices actually help to make marginal property development viable. There is a shortage of supply out there and what this will do is make supply more readily available - Hockey (so higher prices lead to higher priced new construction. Not sure how that's going to benefit most FHBs and renters).

If housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset. - Abbot. Such simple honesty and why NG is a sacred cow.
 
sydboy007 said:
So you believe PPL should be outlawed, or in Howard / Costello speak prohibited content of a workplace agreement?

Seriously, you sound more like a communist every day. 1 type of toothpaste, 1 type of PPL.
Click to expand...

Was there any work place agreement between Labor and pregnant women on their PPL when they introduced their legislation?

A communist??????....FFS....... have you gone loco like Palmer?......I still have the bitter taste of communism from the 50's and 60's......but of course today the Fabians have a different approach in adopting communism...they do it with the subtle approach through the Greens/Labor coalition...they chip away bit by bit so the naive do not notice it until it is too late.
 
noco said:
Was there any work place agreement between Labor and pregnant women on their PPL when they introduced their legislation?

A communist??????....FFS....... have you gone loco like Palmer?......I still have the bitter taste of communism from the 50's and 60's......but of course today the Fabians have a different approach in adopting communism...they do it with the subtle approach through the Greens/Labor coalition...they chip away bit by bit so the naive do not notice it until it is too late.
Click to expand...

Well legislating PPL at tax payer expense is a very different concept to employees and employers deciding that it's a condition of employment they would like and probably seems them receive slightly lower pay to help fund it. Different companies provide different employee benefits to attract talent. My company provides me with free gym membership in the belief healthy employees are more productive and have less sick days, while also having access to a semi cheap holiday accommodation service as well. In my last job we used to get nearly free internet and mobile phone plans. Most smart companies do similar deals with their employees.

As for your views on communism, isn't that what your calling for with a 1 size fits all Govt PPL scheme as opposed to different companies having their own schemes if employees want that as one of their conditions of employment, including public servants and politicians?

Lighten up on your fabian conspiracy theories
 
Top