Support NeoGAF

[A More Normal Bird]

The Coalition can't even do austerity as well as Labor. What are they good for?

Yes, I understand how it actually impacts people who double dip. However, I don't see why employers would change their parental leave program based on this. That is what I was quoting and replying too.

If the benefits stack, all employers have an incentive to offer some level of additional leave. Now, only those employers capable of offering a benefit better than the government scheme have an incentive to do so. Consequently, there will be less competition as far as this particular benefit goes.

 

[Elaugaufein]

If the benefits stack, all employers have an incentive to offer some level of additional leave. Now, only those employers capable of offering a benefit better than the government scheme have an incentive to do so. Consequently, there will be less competition as far as this particular benefit goes.

Even if they do have the capacity to trump the government offer it is more enticing to an employee to convert that capacity into some other compensation like higher wages or health care or something even more transparent like arbitrary vacation time (so that they can still access the government scheme).

 

[Arksy]

Even if they do have the capacity to trump the government offer it is more enticing to an employee to convert that capacity into some other compensation like higher wages or health care or something even more transparent like arbitrary vacation time (so that they can still access the government scheme).

I might buy this, but that's why the government minimum is good. If your employer wants to offset it against higher wages and the like so be it, you still have 18 weeks, which is fairly decent.

 

[Fredescu]

 

[Shaneus]

*sigh*

 

[bobnowhere]

Looks like the next "class" that's going to cop it is Public Servants, not a shock, I know, from the Coalition. So according to Abbott it's perfectly fine for Women working in the public service to get publicly funded parental leave, the 18 week minimum, but they are unable to bargain for or be topped up for more. That would be double dipping, or rorting or scamming, but it's perfectly fine for women in the private sector to get their government funded PPL topped up, that's the free market. At least Malcolm is distancing himself from it.

I can't believe they think they are going to get away with legislating in such a disadvantage to working in the public sector. Although maybe it's the goal, force everyone out of the public service, reduce government to zero, reduce taxes to zero while improving services and infrastructure. I think Joe's been jabbing 3 or 4 keys at once on his "My First Calculator" again.

 

[Yagharek]

I might buy this, but that's why the government minimum is good. If your employer wants to offset it against higher wages and the like so be it, you still have 18 weeks, which is fairly decent.

Especially if you're married to the finance minister

 

[Yagharek]

Or assistant treasure

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Only a few minutes until Bill Shorten talks about how this budget is cruel and unfair and spends too much and government MPs respond by saying how they need to spend to stimulate the green shoots of the economy and that if Shorten doesn't like their cuts he should propose his own and also that Labor spends too much.

 

[Yagharek]

How on earth did the electorate get fooled so much as to vote abbot's lot in. Honestly.

 

[bobnowhere]

Soppy platitudes and zingers, yep it's Bill Shorten.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Assuming the Coalition deliver a third budget, I'll be very interested in seeing what tactics the Speaker employs next time to keep the public gallery quiet.

 

[Marky Mark]

The double dipping thing is a bit of a joke. My wife works at a major hardware retailer who gives four weeks of paid parental leave but she and I are by no means high income earners.

So with our next child we will miss out on $11000 of parental leave because she gets four weeks pay from work (only $100 or so more per fortnight than the government fortnightly payments).

Mr Hockey, if you don't want us "double dipping" then let us choose which parental leave payment to accept and we'll gladly take the government money.

The left hand gives $1500 for childcare and the right takes $11000 away.

Or is it that she will get her four weeks and then 14 from big government?

 

[Arksy]

The double dipping thing is a bit of a joke. My wife works at a major hardware retailer who gives four weeks of paid parental leave but she and I are by no means high income earners.

So with our next child we will miss out on $11000 of parental leave because she gets four weeks pay from work (only $100 or so more per fortnight than the government fortnightly payments).

Mr Hockey, if you don't want us "double dipping" then let us choose which parental leave payment to accept and we'll gladly take the government money.

The left hand gives $1500 for childcare and the right takes $11000 away.

Or is it that she will get her four weeks and then 14 from big government?

It's cumulative, but not additive. Everyone gets the minimum 18 weeks at whatever rate it is, so if your work offers four already, the government will offer 14.

 

[roosters93]

Emma Alberici tearing strips off Corman ATM!

Already called him on his made up numbers and he's accussed her of being a Labor plant.

Had a watch, go Emma.
Interesting to listen to Corman's Belgian accent and then hear a broad Aussie accent slip in every now and again on certain sounds.

Should there really be incentives to have kids? That just sounds like a wrong statement. Kids should be planned and you should be financial able to support a kid if you choose to take on the responsibility. You can't just assume the government is going to help you all the time if you have one.

Whether there should be incentives is a good philosophical argument to have but yeah we used to even have Baby Bonuses, a $5000 lump sum for having a tyke

 

[Aarglefarg]

Shorten's reply to this budget was better than I expected. That is not in comparison to the previous budget reply but his job was harder this time. I hope that it will work.

 

[Shaneus]

Shorten's reply to this budget was better than I expected. That is not in comparison to the previous budget reply but his job was harder this time. I hope that it will work.

Likewise, but I remember feeling as equally as energized last year as well. And we all saw how that turned out... it was the last we saw of Shorten for that period.

Hopefully his new testicular transplant takes and he doesn't get neutered when it actually matters.



Side note: Anyone else think that both Hockey's and Shorten's speeches were both indicative of a likely 2015 election?

 

[T-0800]

How on earth did the electorate get fooled so much as to vote abbot's lot in. Honestly.

Labour were doing such a great job. I just don't understand it either.

 

[DrSlek]

Labour were doing such a great job. I just don't understand it either.

They were actually doing a pretty good job, despite the viscious infighting over leadership. but the majority of the Australian public saw the infighting and assumed they were doing a shit job. The LNP mantra of laybas rekles spendin didn't help matters either.

 

[Jintor]

Okay, I'm an economic infant. Can someone explain to me in the simplest possible terms what the hell this paid parental leave/'rorting' stuff etc. is about. It doesn't affect me directly in any way but I'd like to understand it.

 

[Darren870]

Okay, I'm an economic infant. Can someone explain to me in the simplest possible terms what the hell this paid parental leave/'rorting' stuff etc. is about. It doesn't affect me directly in any way but I'd like to understand it.

The government gives 18 weeks of Minimum wage to parents for leave. This equals about ~$11k total

Sometimes a company also gives the parents paid leave.

The government is making it so you can't collect from them if you are collecting from your company. If your company gives you only 4 weeks, then you get 14 from the government. If your company gives you 20 weeks you get 0 from the government.

In the end you get 18 weeks minimum still, but can't be collecting from the government WHILE collecting from your employer.

Which I agree with.

You used to be able to collect from both and stack it. Eg if your company gave you 4, the government would still give you 18, which is 22 weeks in total.

Edit: The reason I agree with it is because not everyone is in a position to get parental leave from their employer. This is where the government comes in and shines. They are helping out the less fortunate to that don't get employer plans. If you are fortunate enough to get some from your employer the government shouldn't be still giving you extra money, it should be saved for other less fortunate.

 

[DrSlek]

Okay, I'm an economic infant. Can someone explain to me in the simplest possible terms what the hell this paid parental leave/'rorting' stuff etc. is about. It doesn't affect me directly in any way but I'd like to understand it.

Previous if a new parents workplace offered paid parental leave, the person in question could still go down to Centrelink and also get a Government PPL package as well. As I understand it, this is no longer possible in the current budget.

 

[bobnowhere]

First poll after budget, no real significant 2pp but in regards to the budget:

Better off - 16.4%
Same - 53.3%
Worse off - 30.3%

Faint praise? Complete indifference? Meh? Can't help but think they were looking for a much better response.

 

[Jintor]

The government gives 18 weeks of Minimum wage to parents for leave. This equals about ~$11k total

Sometimes a company also gives the parents paid leave.

The government is making it so you can't collect from them if you are collecting from your company. If your company gives you only 4 weeks, then you get 14 from the government. If your company gives you 20 weeks you get 0 from the government.

In the end you get 18 weeks minimum still, but can't be collecting from the government WHILE collecting from your employer.

Which I agree with.

You used to be able to collect from both and stack it. Eg if your company gave you 4, the government would still give you 18, which is 22 weeks in total.

Edit: The reason I agree with it is because not everyone is in a position to get parental leave from their employer. This is where the government comes in and shines. They are helping out the less fortunate to that don't get employer plans. If you are fortunate enough to get some from your employer the government shouldn't be still giving you extra money, it should be saved for other less fortunate.

Previous if a new parents workplace offered paid parental leave, the person in question could still go down to Centrelink and also get a Government PPL package as well. As I understand it, this is no longer possible in the current budget.

Thanks. That doesn't seem especially objectionable other than as with most other things it disproportionately affects lower income earners.

Is the government paid leave capped? Equiv to employer salary? Set amount?

 

[danm999]

Thanks. That doesn't seem especially objectionable other than as with most other things it disproportionately affects lower income earners.

It's more the politics of it than the economics that are causing headlines at the moment.

First poll after budget, no real significant 2pp but in regards to the budget:

Better off - 16.4%
Same - 53.3%
Worse off - 30.3%

Faint praise? Complete indifference? Meh? Can't help but think they were looking for a much better response.

Difficult to know at this point. Certainly seems like they didn't want a repeat of last year, but whether they wanted this year to just be a holding pattern and to drop the popular budget next year before the election is up in the air.

 

[Fredescu]

Is the government paid leave capped? Equiv to employer salary? Set amount?

Minimum wage. And yeah, the fact that they're selling it is "double dipping" is the stupid thing.

 

[Arksy]

Thanks. That doesn't seem especially objectionable other than as with most other things it disproportionately affects lower income earners.

Is the government paid leave capped? Equiv to employer salary? Set amount?

I don't agree that it disproportionately affects lower income workers. That's kind of a blanket statement that doesn't necessarily work. We can't seem to agree on which companies give out the best company maternity leave programs, whether it's highly unionised workers, highly paid professionals or public servants...we can agree that it affects them more than anyone else. I'm not too inclined to feel sorry for well paid professionals and public servants though.

Remember if you're a lowly paid casual then you don't get any benefits at all. I think they're the most vulnerable at the moment.

 

[Jintor]

I don't agree that it disproportionately affects lower income workers. That's kind of a blanket statement that doesn't necessarily work.

Well yeah it's a blanket statements, that why I said 'like most other things'. A free $11k is worth more for lower income workers than others, so

We can't seem to agree on which companies give out the best company maternity leave programs, whether it's highly unionised workers, highly paid professionals or public servants...we can agree that it affects them more than anyone else. I'm not too inclined to feel sorry for well paid professionals and public servants though.

Remember if you're a lowly paid casual then you don't get any benefits at all. I think they're the most vulnerable at the moment.

point. Is this PPL for all jobs or only full-time?

 

[Arksy]

Well yeah it's a blanket statements, that why I said 'like most other things'. A free $11k is worth more for lower income workers than others, so

You're right of course, it's just that I don't think hordes of low income employees are generally able to access good maternity leave programs. For low income full time employees I think 18 weeks at minimum wage is fairly generous. Or at least, my thoughts might be coloured by that horrifying John Oliver piece this week.

point. Is this PPL for all jobs or only full-time?

Don't know to be honest. You don't get any leave from casual jobs aside from two days sick leave a year in certain circumstances so I'm sure they don't get PPL.

 

[Darren870]

point. Is this PPL for all jobs or only full-time?

It would only be full time workers that may get company benefits. Anyone that is part time/casual worker wouldn't receive benefits (so no change for them). Small Business owners/Independent workers also wouldn't have benefits for themselves (again no change for them).

 

[A More Normal Bird]

The Government deserve every ounce of criticism that comes their way over the politics of the PPL decision, independent of any assessment of the policy itself. Labor's scheme was introduced in 2011. The Coalition spent five years saying that it didn't go far enough and that their scheme was important for growth and equality, even as they copped criticism for advocating for greater benefits for high income earners whilst also demanding that every other aspect of government be shut down to avoid having to sell the country off for scrap to pay for Typical Labor's Debt and Deficit Disaster (TM).

Then all of that changed and they reduced, then dumped their own scheme, before finally deciding to hobble Labor's existing policy and label it - and by extension, those using it - a rort, scam and double-dipping fraud.

I don't agree that it disproportionately affects lower income workers. That's kind of a blanket statement that doesn't necessarily work. We can't seem to agree on which companies give out the best company maternity leave programs, whether it's highly unionised workers, highly paid professionals or public servants...we can agree that it affects them more than anyone else. I'm not too inclined to feel sorry for well paid professionals and public servants though.

Remember if you're a lowly paid casual then you don't get any benefits at all. I think they're the most vulnerable at the moment.

I think there might be a miscommunication here as to whether "disproportionate" applies to the numbers of those affected or the significance of the change on those it does affect. As you've just alluded to (bold), any reduction in government benefits to low income earners disproportionately affects low income earners, whereas Joe Hockey might say that because low income earners don't have cars employer offered maternity leave it doesn't disproportionately affect them.

 

[danm999]

Then all of that changed and they reduced, then dumped their own scheme, before finally deciding to hobble Labor's existing policy and label it - and by extension, those using it - a rort, scam and double-dipping fraud.

Which included amongst its number some familiar faces.

Yes the whole "rort" angle is a bit of a head scratcher given the Coalition's previous stance, and I'd almost believe Scott Morrison had gone off script if a few other MPs hadn't been saying the same thing.

 

[hidys]

So Christopher Pyne has confirmed he is bringing Uni-fee deregulation back into parliament soon.

Because it worked so well the last few times he tried it.

 

[Candescence]

I am surprised that Shorten actually decided to one-up the government with an actual substantial tech policy. Now, we just need some actual policy to revive the game industry in this country and it'll be perfect, because we're seriously missing out on the fastest-growing entertainment industry on the planet right now.

 

[Fredescu]

Labor's scheme was introduced in 2011.

Labor's scheme essentially spread out the Libs baby bonus into a PPL right? I'm pretty sure we got a baby bonus with our first and a PPL with our second.

 

[wonzo]

So Christopher Pyne has confirmed he is bringing Uni-fee deregulation back into parliament soon.

Because it worked so well the last few times he tried it.

cmon DD trigger

 

[Shaneus]

So Christopher Pyne has confirmed he is bringing Uni-fee deregulation back into parliament soon.

Because it worked so well the last few times he tried it.

Didn't Shorten say he was going to knock it back every time it was brought up? Not like Pyne to waste the time of the parliament, though.


And his body language (along with Hockey's and Abbott's) during the budget reply was absolutely abhorrent. Such an immature pack of weasels, and they run our fucking country

 

[elfinke]

Side note: Anyone else think that both Hockey's and Shorten's speeches were both indicative of a likely 2015 election?

FWIW, the ACTU are preparing (meaning, they're interviewing people to fulfil election duties - you know, polling, door knocking, phone banks, database building and so on) for an election in the final quarter of this year (initially for September) for months now, but have recently really ramped up their efforts and campaigning.

While it isn't likely, remember that if the POS higher education reform bill is defeated in the senate again in its current state, that is a trigger for a double dissolution.

/edit: this email went out today, for example: http://www.teamoneterm.org.au/

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Labor's scheme essentially spread out the Libs baby bonus into a PPL right? I'm pretty sure we got a baby bonus with our first and a PPL with our second.

IIRC Labor made it so you could choose between PPL or the baby bonus. Then in their last budget they abolished the bonus and replaced it with some fiddling with Family Tax Benefits.

 

[mjontrix]

I am surprised that Shorten actually decided to one-up the government with an actual substantial tech policy. Now, we just need some actual policy to revive the game industry in this country and it'll be perfect, because we're seriously missing out on the fastest-growing entertainment industry on the planet right now.

Mobile gaming!

Console gaming has no chance, Nada, zilch.

Our wages are too high and our labour laws too good for that. PC Games should be fine as well as mobile. It's all good though - the resurgence of the PC master race can't be stopped now (that 20K rebate can go a long way).

 

[Elaugaufein]

Mobile gaming!

Console gaming has no chance, Nada, zilch.

Our wages are too high and our labour laws too good for that. PC Games should be fine as well as mobile. It's all good though - the resurgence of the PC master race can't be stopped now (that 20K rebate can go a long way).

I can't say I'm even a little bit sorry about us not being able to do the console gaming thing and I'm pretty leery of most of the big house PC stuff too. The work conditions expected are appalling , and we really shouldn't want to be encouraging that sort of behavior. It basically turns peoples enthusiasm to work in the industry into burnout and other peoples profit for anything except the most successful games.

 

[Candescence]

Mobile gaming!

Console gaming has no chance, Nada, zilch.

Our wages are too high and our labour laws too good for that. PC Games should be fine as well as mobile. It's all good though - the resurgence of the PC master race can't be stopped now (that 20K rebate can go a long way).

I can't say I'm even a little bit sorry about us not being able to do the console gaming thing and I'm pretty leery of most of the big house PC stuff too. The work conditions expected are appalling , and we really shouldn't want to be encouraging that sort of behavior. It basically turns peoples enthusiasm to work in the industry into burnout and other peoples profit for anything except the most successful games.

Considering the long-term unsustainability of AAA development, I'm totally okay with lower-budget projects being supported instead. The industry needs more of that in general.