The Abbott Government

[noco]

Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?

While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.

Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling. Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.

But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.

ABBOTT...ABBOTT...ABBOTT......Why blame Abbott?

Gillard promised the world to that Tasmanian Senator, I think his name is Wicks, to fix the gambling problem and she back flipped on the deal......she let him down badly which is no surprise.

No one is forced to gamble......they all know the consequences with poker machines......so if they want to pour their money into the pokies so be it....Good luck if they win.....bad luck if they lose.....you will never beat a poker machine.

 

[Smurf1976]

How many people do you and Syd employ out of interest?

I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?

Most bosses dont bother with medical certificates.But those that implement it do so for a reason. It was brought in for a reason.

Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries.

And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.

Me pay, not too unreasonable. But I don't actually need to see a doctor for a common cold, there's no medical need for that whatsoever, hence no need to actually pay a cent. Just staying home for a few days, in order to avoid spreading it to others, is all that's required. No medical certificate, since no doctor involved.

It's business that wants unnecessary visits to GP's, not patients. It thus seems perfectly reasonable that, in line with the much vaunted "user pays principle", business pays the cost of this excess medical servicing not required the by patients. This then produces a price signal, encouraging business to curb this expensive practice except in situations where value is actually being created.

The crux of this and many other issues is that the Australian economy has become increasingly inefficient and it's costing everyone, business included, an outright fortune. Either we change, or at some point the rest of the world will effectively force change one way or another. Most of that comes down to special deals for this, that and every other interest group with the practice of issuing medical certificates for common colds etc being just one of numerous examples. But as with all of them, there is incredible resistance to change from those who seek to gain from maintaining the inefficiencies.

There is hardly any industry, apart from iron ore due to a natural advantage, where Australia is efficient by global standards these days. We need reform, a lot of reform, and a government willing to pursue it. By definition that government cannot possibly consider itself to be "conservative" if it is to be the agent of change. Therein lies the problem, our main political options are either conservative, or are heavily aligned to a particular interest group. End result is that sensible reform is virtually impossible, one party by its' very nature is not keen on change and the other is too close to those who may seek to resist it. Hence, not much changes.

 

[moXJO]

Businesses aren't mothers, but they are breeding grounds for germs spread around by their employees. People dont want to get sick by mostly they get sick in the premises of their employers sitting next to sick people who are at work because employers are stingy about giving sick leave.

So as I suggested before, if employers paid a proportion of the cost of getting a certificate (this is called a price signal), then maybe they will get the idea that employee sickness is partly their fault too.

which is then claimed as a business expense and admin costs then get added boosting the final expense. So bad idea imo. Yep charge employers and they will charge it back on top of admin.

And further what about the liability of bosses who do not get a medical certificate. Employee gets sick "dont worry about a med cert Jim only a cold" he then comes back in and either makes everyone else seriously sick or his illnesses is a lot worse and is not caught early. Some prick would try and sue if you are not covered with paperwork after someone works out the loop hole

 

[moXJO]

I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?



Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries.



Me pay, not too unreasonable. But I don't actually need to see a doctor for a common cold, there's no medical need for that whatsoever, hence no need to actually pay a cent. Just staying home for a few days, in order to avoid spreading it to others, is all that's required. No medical certificate, since no doctor involved.

It's business that wants unnecessary visits to GP's, not patients. It thus seems perfectly reasonable that, in line with the much vaunted "user pays principle", business pays the cost of this excess medical servicing not required the by patients. This then produces a price signal, encouraging business to curb this expensive practice except in situations where value is actually being created.

The crux of this and many other issues is that the Australian economy has become increasingly inefficient and it's costing everyone, business included, an outright fortune. Either we change, or at some point the rest of the world will effectively force change one way or another. Most of that comes down to special deals for this, that and every other interest group with the practice of issuing medical certificates for common colds etc being just one of numerous examples. But as with all of them, there is incredible resistance to change from those who seek to gain from maintaining the inefficiencies.

There is hardly any industry, apart from iron ore due to a natural advantage, where Australia is efficient by global standards these days. We need reform, a lot of reform, and a government willing to pursue it. By definition that government cannot possibly consider itself to be "conservative" if it is to be the agent of change. Therein lies the problem, our main political options are either conservative, or are heavily aligned to a particular interest group. End result is that sensible reform is virtually impossible, one party by its' very nature is not keen on change and the other is too close to those who may seek to resist it. Hence, not much changes.

You can tell the employees, different mindset. Go run a business and watch your opinions quickly change.
The construction industry most dont bother with a med cert, but then most will work while sick and only take off hangover days.

Its to expensive to employ people full time which is leading to a casual workforce (which in the long run is about as inefficient and costly).But costs and wages are already high enough without stiffing employers with another cost on top.
Im sorry but sickies were a massive problem in the 90s where they were rorted. You guys are going over ideas that already failed.

 

[moXJO]

More like $65 less the medicare rebate

I've had incidences of being sick where the effort to get an MC has probably meant I needed an extra day to recover. I think some flexibility around this issue would help save a lot of $$ without opening it up to rorting.

Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.

I wouldn't mind if there was a provision made so that an employee who uses above the average could be asked to attend a company doctor on their next sick leave request. I don't see the employer has a right to know what illness you have, but they do have a right to confirm you are ill.

The current system is extremely expensive, especially if you are forced to go to an emergency department, as I have, so as to get an MC to get paid for the sick leave.

sensible idea

 

[boofhead]

ABBOTT...ABBOTT...ABBOTT......Why blame Abbott?

Gillard promised the world to that Tasmanian Senator, I think his name is Wicks, to fix the gambling problem and she back flipped on the deal......she let him down badly which is no surprise.

No one is forced to gamble......they all know the consequences with poker machines......so if they want to pour their money into the pokies so be it....Good luck if they win.....bad luck if they lose.....you will never beat a poker machine.

Andrew Wilkie is the member of parliament you're thinking of. He is not a senator. He has an interesting history.

As for gambling - a number of problem gamblers are on various types of government welfare - desperate to get a lucky break. It is interesting to see how people think about how people on welfare payments should spend money, how government should then control areas that seem unproductive (unfavourable habits, entertainment etc)

 

[SirRumpole]

which is then claimed as a business expense and admin costs then get added boosting the final expense. So bad idea imo. Yep charge employers and they will charge it back on top of admin.

So what ? It's the employer that requires the medical cert, so why shouldn't they pay instead of the taxpayer via Medicare ?

Your business rules are no concern of mine or any other taxpayer. The other side is that requiring a certificate discourages abuse of the sick leave system. That is to the advantage of business, another reason why business should pick up the tab for MC's and why it should not be a deductible business expense.

 

[SirRumpole]

Andrew Wilkie is the member of parliament you're thinking of. He is not a senator. He has an interesting history.

I'm absolutely amazed that someone who raves on about every perceived evil of a certain political party couldn't be bothered making himself aware of the facts of who he is actually talking about, and has such a short memory about details.

For heavens sake <you know who you are>, do some research before blurting out propaganda, you have little credibility as it is.

 

[sptrawler]

Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?

While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.

Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling. Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.

But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.

In W.A we don't have pokies, other than in the casino. I hate the things.

However I doubt the pokie, or gambling problem, has only come about in the last 16 months.

I did hear a lot about pokie reform while Labor was in, but was anything of substance ever tabled? I'm sure Labor didn't need bipartisan support to pass anti pokie reforms.

Having said that, wasn't it reported a month or so ago, that one of the political parties, were involved in a pokie operation somewhere over East?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...act-pokies-clubs/story-fn59niix-1226065964688

It can't always be Tony's fault, or can it Syd? Your dislike, seems to be clouding your otherwise, good posts.

 

[Julia]

I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?

I imagine the relevance was that an employer and an employee will view the same situation from their own points of view. In an ideal workplace these views will be complementary, but not when you have employees whose attitude is how much can they get for how little input.

Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries.

Presumably that's a characteristic of the type of work you have done. I was in the workforce for nearly thirty years, was never asked to provide a MC once.
And during the part of that time which was spent as an employer, we would never have asked any employee to provide one.

Reason? Trust. A tacit understanding that employer would look after the competent employee who worked in good faith toward helping the employer achieve his goals. In so doing, a preparedness for give and take on both sides, eg travelling on Sunday to get the best out of a working week out of town, an afternoon off when all was quiet.

In that sort of atmosphere the best outcomes occur for everyone concerned.

If MC is part of a firm's culture, then Rumpole's suggestion seems fair - that each party pays half.

And further to my earlier description of the retired teacher enjoying over a year on full pay in retirement, I omitted to mention that that's in addition to a similar amount of long service leave.
Why not just be upfront and state that "the conditions for this job include X number of days of paid leave, you decide what to call it yourself"?
No wonder productivity is so dismal in this country.

PS Smurf, on the 'trust' issue above, I am not suggesting you are not trusted or that you do not trust your employer. Presumably you work for some large electricity organisation where individual relationships are less likely to occur.

 

[noco]

I believe employees at the Jupiters Hotel/Casino in Townsville have to produce a MC if they have just one day off sick and that were the conditions when the place was owned by Tabcorp and Echo Entertainment....I do not know what takes place there now since the Leisure Group took it over last year...I guess the new owners would not have relaxed those conditions...

They employe some 500 workers.

 

[Tisme]

It's not about paying the $7.

Arguing for the sake of arguing aside, I agree that getting a medical certificate is a nonsense procedure and worse case for any one taking a sickie is that he/she has to shop around to find a willing GP. As an employer who never takes legitimate sick leave let alone a sickie I really don't see much worth in the ritual.

The other thing that I am puzzled at is the govt's moves to put the revenue raising in the hands of one of, if not the most militant union in the country. The AMA membership is a closed shop organisation that regularly flexes it's muscles in disobedience of the govt, any govt and invariably the govt capitulates.

 

[noco]

I'm absolutely amazed that someone who raves on about every perceived evil of a certain political party couldn't be bothered making himself aware of the facts of who he is actually talking about, and has such a short memory about details.

For heavens sake <you know who you are>, do some research before blurting out propaganda, you have little credibility as it is.

No guts...no glory Rumpy....So I made a mistake and you were delighted to jump on the bandwagon of character assassination again....Anyone who does not a mistake does not make anything.

Whether his name is Wicks. Wilkie or Willie Winkie it made no difference to the long nosed redhead PM who was recently dumped......She duped Andrew Wilkie into believing she would do something about problem gambling just to get his support in the lower house and then put it in the too hard basket.....That woman lied through her teeth.....Wlike took her at her word but of course we all know Gillards word was not worth the paper it was written on.....only the one she signed with Bob Brown for the carbon tax we were not supposed to have. ....Wilkie was not a very happy little Vegemite .

 

[Tisme]

No guts...no glory Rumpy....So I made a mistake and you were delighted to jump on the bandwagon of character assassination again....Anyone who does not a mistake does not make anything.

Whether his name is Wicks. Wilkie or Willie Winkie it made no difference to the long nosed redhead PM who was recently dumped......She duped Andrew Wilkie into believing she would do something about problem gambling just to get his support in the lower house and then put it in the too hard basket.....That woman lied through her teeth.....Wlike took her at her word but of course we all know Gillards word was not worth the paper it was written on.....only the one she signed with Bob Brown for the carbon tax we were not supposed to have. ....Wilkie was not a very happy little Vegemite .

That's an interesting view, but I subscribe more to what he actually waxed lyrical about and that was more to do with seat fixing and Gillard driven by polling and perception.

fore example:

"A curious twist in the story is how Gillard effectively offered me Denison for keeps in mid-2011. We were holding one of our frequent meetings in Canberra and out of the blue she said I needed to think about my future and, in particular, whether I wanted to be the ALP Denison candidate at the next federal election or wanted Labor to not even run a candidate there at all. The alternative, clearly, was business as usual ”” and by implication a tough Labor campaign directed at me come election time. Of course Gillard’s approach to me was in the context of her trying to find a way to head off my bringing the government down. I rejected the suggestions.

But why didn’t Labor-leaning Denison turn on me after I tore up my agreement to support Gillard when, in January 2012, she reneged on her agreement with me to deliver deep poker machine reform? Perhaps that reflected the declining popularity of the prime minister, but in the mix has to be a craving in the community for principled political leadership. To that end Gillard failed to honour her word and it reflected very badly on her. For my part I’d promised repeatedly to withdraw my support if Gillard failed to honour her agreement, and that’s exactly what I did. Frequently afterwards constituents, often traditional Labor supporters, have voiced their approval of my response to the prime minister’s behaviour."

 

[sydboy007]

In W.A we don't have pokies, other than in the casino. I hate the things.

However I doubt the pokie, or gambling problem, has only come about in the last 16 months.

I did hear a lot about pokie reform while Labor was in, but was anything of substance ever tabled? I'm sure Labor didn't need bipartisan support to pass anti pokie reforms.

Having said that, wasn't it reported a month or so ago, that one of the political parties, were involved in a pokie operation somewhere over East?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...act-pokies-clubs/story-fn59niix-1226065964688

It can't always be Tony's fault, or can it Syd? Your dislike, seems to be clouding your otherwise, good posts.

You've been arguing that the senate needs to get out of the way of th Government, that we need a mor ebipartisan view to bring about the reform Australia needs.

So let me know if the below sounds bipartisan from the Abbott opposition & Govt to pokies reform:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-house-wins-gaming-reforms-ditched/764/

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews on Wednesday morning will put to a vote in the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in November 2012.

Among the measures that would be stripped away by the legislation are a requirement that by 2018 all new poker machines be capable of supporting a pre-commitment system, and another that ATM machines in gambling venues have a $250 daily withdrawal limit. So-called ‘pre-commitment’ technology allows gamblers to set how much money they plan to lose in a given session, locking out the player once the limit is reached.

The bill would also dismantle plans for a national gambling regulator, and remove the two levies on the gambling industry intended to fund it; scrap a requirement that warning messages flashed on poker machine screens be “dynamic”, to catch gamblers’ attention; and abolish the proposed trial of a mandatory pre-commitment scheme, which was to begin in the Australian Capital Territory this year.

ATM withdrawal limits in place in Victoria have seen the amount of money that problem gamblers lose on each sitting at the pokies fall by up to $90.

Note the Abbott Govt has turned it's back on a policy THA WAS SHOWN to be effective in Victoria. Surely when you can see something works for the common good you don't stop it rolling out nationally

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/abbott-predicts-pokies-repeal/3600604

Mr Abbott told a rally of more than 1,000 people at the Campbelltown RSL in south-western Sydney last night that problem gambling was an individual issue which can be dealt with by counselling.

He described the pre-commitment legislation as bad law that could not be supported by any sensible party.

"When this legislation comes before the Parliament I predict that we will oppose it," he said.

"And if this legislation is passed by the Parliament and if we then subsequently form a government, I predict we will rescind it. That's what I predict."

So where's that bipartisan suport you've been calling for since the Abbott Govt was formed?

This is what Abbott had to say on triple j back in oct 2011 - "But I don't think the Labor caucus like it. I think if she tries to ram it through, if she's still the prime minister, this could be (the issue) which kills her."

So do you think Abbott was opposed to pokies reform because he didn't think it would be successful (though at least limited reform in Vic HAD BEEN SUUCCESSFUL), or that there were better ways to achieve it, or was it because he thought it would harm the Gillard Govt and opposing it would benefit himself and the coalition opposition?

 

[moXJO]

So what ? It's the employer that requires the medical cert, so why shouldn't they pay instead of the taxpayer via Medicare ?

Your business rules are no concern of mine or any other taxpayer. The other side is that requiring a certificate discourages abuse of the sick leave system. That is to the advantage of business, another reason why business should pick up the tab for MC's and why it should not be a deductible business expense.

yeah and its the employee that wants a paid day off so stump up the cert for pay. Otherwise take as many days unpaid with no cert as you want.

 

[noco]

That's an interesting view, but I subscribe more to what he actually waxed lyrical about and that was more to do with seat fixing and Gillard driven by polling and perception.

fore example:

"A curious twist in the story is how Gillard effectively offered me Denison for keeps in mid-2011. We were holding one of our frequent meetings in Canberra and out of the blue she said I needed to think about my future and, in particular, whether I wanted to be the ALP Denison candidate at the next federal election or wanted Labor to not even run a candidate there at all. The alternative, clearly, was business as usual ”” and by implication a tough Labor campaign directed at me come election time. Of course Gillard’s approach to me was in the context of her trying to find a way to head off my bringing the government down. I rejected the suggestions.

But why didn’t Labor-leaning Denison turn on me after I tore up my agreement to support Gillard when, in January 2012, she reneged on her agreement with me to deliver deep poker machine reform? Perhaps that reflected the declining popularity of the prime minister, but in the mix has to be a craving in the community for principled political leadership. To that end Gillard failed to honour her word and it reflected very badly on her. For my part I’d promised repeatedly to withdraw my support if Gillard failed to honour her agreement, and that’s exactly what I did. Frequently afterwards constituents, often traditional Labor supporters, have voiced their approval of my response to the prime minister’s behaviour."

Thank you Tisme for your support...that is exactly what happened with Gillard and Wilkie.

 

[sptrawler]

You've been arguing that the senate needs to get out of the way of th Government, that we need a mor ebipartisan view to bring about the reform Australia needs.

So let me know if the below sounds bipartisan from the Abbott opposition & Govt to pokies reform:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-house-wins-gaming-reforms-ditched/764/

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews on Wednesday morning will put to a vote in the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in November 2012.



Note the Abbott Govt has turned it's back on a policy THA WAS SHOWN to be effective in Victoria. Surely when you can see something works for the common good you don't stop it rolling out nationally

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/abbott-predicts-pokies-repeal/3600604



So where's that bipartisan suport you've been calling for since the Abbott Govt was formed?

This is what Abbott had to say on triple j back in oct 2011 - "But I don't think the Labor caucus like it. I think if she tries to ram it through, if she's still the prime minister, this could be (the issue) which kills her."

So do you think Abbott was opposed to pokies reform because he didn't think it would be successful (though at least limited reform in Vic HAD BEEN SUUCCESSFUL), or that there were better ways to achieve it, or was it because he thought it would harm the Gillard Govt and opposing it would benefit himself and the coalition opposition?

Why did the Gillard Government forward date everything? One is no better than the other.

During Labors last term of office the only successful party was the Greens, Bob Brown had Labor push through their whole agenda.
Now Abbott is suffering the same fate, the only difference is Palmer etc, haven't a clue about any policy.
In effect bipartisan relations are non existent, and Australia is suffering for it.

As far as pokies go, I would rather see the W.A model, or a complete ban on them.

From a Governments perspective, they probably see it as a way of recouping welfare, that may be why neither do anything about it.

You confuse my call for bipartisan support, as a tick of approval for the Abbott Government.

What I have always said is, the elected Government should be allowed(within reason), to enact fiscal policy.

That policy can then be voted on at the next election, it is only three year terms, then if the majority vote them out it is changed. e.g the carbon tax.

What we currently have, is loonies vandalising the system, for their own pet agendas.

Abbott and co are not performing any better than Gillard, Rudd and co did.

Abbott is prostituting himself to Palmer, the same way as Gillard did to Bob Brown.
The sad thing is, we the plebs pay for ineffective, incoherent policy.

As you point out, we need to find new taxes, to support an ever burgeoning welfare dependence.

I think, you won't be able to raise enough tax to pay for welfare, in the foreseable future, then what recipients spend it on will be the issue.IMO

 

[Smurf1976]

PS Smurf, on the 'trust' issue above, I am not suggesting you are not trusted or that you do not trust your employer. Presumably you work for some large electricity organisation where individual relationships are less likely to occur.

In my present job we do get a number of "certificate optional" sick days each year and personally I've never used anywhere near the lot. Sick leave is for if you actually are sick in my view, it's not an entitlement that should be taken for the sake of it. I suspect that my own view might be biasing my thinking here somewhat, ignoring the extent to which some people probably would rort the system if they could get away with it.

Main reason I mentioned it as an example of inefficiency in the economy, is the difficulty getting in to see a GP when there's a spike in colds etc which happens every winter here. It just seems to be an incredible waste of resources to have people seeing GP's for no reason other than obtaining a piece of paper with no actual medical treatment provided.

Thinking of an other situation with with a similar principle, vehicle accidents. I'm not sure about other states, but in Tas the police have set up an online system for reporting "for the sake of reporting it" vehicle accidents not requiring police to attend. The basic concept is that you phone if you actually do need police to attend the accident scene, but if it's just a minor incident (no injuries, vehicles can be safely driven away) and you're only reporting it in order to keep the insurer happy then you can use the online system instead. It keeps insurers happy without using up police resources with minor incidents.

The medical certificate one might be difficult to address in practice I think, but as a general principle I do think that as a society we do need to be looking at things differently and be willing to accept the removal of unnecessary waste.

The tax system is another one. If an individual with straightforward finances (eg they have a job, a few work-related deductions and a bit of bank interest) feels the need to use a professional to prepare their Tax Return then something is seriously wrong with either the tax system or the individual. I think it was Howard / Costello (from memory) who suggested the idea of just giving everyone an automatic refund of $x and abolishing the minor deductions so as to reduce the administrative burden. In principle that idea seems sensible - same concept as the other things I've mentioned, trying to reduce things which are unnecessary and offer little or no benefit.

Where government comes into all this is leadership. Government really needs to be leading the debate about how to make Australia more efficient and why it needs to be done. At present, we're uncompetitive at just about everything and that's not going to do us any good in the long term.

 

[Smurf1976]

The other thing that I am puzzled at is the govt's moves to put the revenue raising in the hands of one of, if not the most militant union in the country. The AMA membership is a closed shop organisation that regularly flexes it's muscles in disobedience of the govt, any govt and invariably the govt capitulates.

I strongly suspect that the Coalition associates the word "union" with certain occupations only, primarily blue collar workers and also the likes of teachers. I seriously doubt that they see the AMA in anything resembling the same way they see the CFMEU for example. One represents a white collar, professional occupation and the other represents primarily blue collar workers. Stereotypically, the Coalition is more aligned to the former and Labor more aligned to the latter and I do think this filters through to broader thinking of the government.