Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Infographic: the promises vs budget measures

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

36 Comments sorted by

  1. craig c

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    under Welfare why are Stricter Newstart Guidelines and Tighten Eligibility for Family Benefits marked with green ticks? these should definitely indicated with red crosses

    report
    1. Katey Bereny

      Resident Poodle

      In reply to craig c

      because "the age of entitlement is over" (I'd like to swap my income for Hockey's)

      report
    2. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to craig c

      I think we can do away with Family Benefits all together

      people choose to start a family, they don't choose to be a new starter

      report
    3. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Michael Shand

      To be fair, not all people "choose" to have children. It doesn't apply to me personally, but more importantly, what about those that would like a family but cannot afford to raise a child out of poverty. They don't get to 'choose' to have a family, well they have a choice between raising a child in poverty or not having one. That is not a fair decision to make when the country CAN afford an alternative. Certainly people in starving third world countries continue to have children, perhaps we should…

      Read more
    4. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      If you lack the ability to exercise for 30mins then we can all agree you are a bad footy player, doesn't mean your a bad person, just not suited for playing footy

      if you lack the ability to distinguish between colours, your not allowed to be an electrician, your not a bad person, you just shouldn't be fixing electrical problems

      if you lack the ability to raise a child, we should all be able to agree you are a bad parent - sorry, I know people get touchy because of all the hormones associated…

      Read more
    5. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Michael Shand

      I most definitely agree with most of this and don't claim to have the answer. There are those that use the system for a production line of children that don't necessarily deserve assistance, but my sensibilities suggest we should still assist, if only for the innocent child's sake. The alternative being forced abortions or adoptions? There are a myriad reasons why parent(s) might have children and need assistance and while in some cases it might be so, they don't all correlate with them being lazy…

      Read more
    6. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      "their own moral system cannot accept abortion as a possibility"

      That's what I like to call a sad day for you

      Labelling a belief as "Moral" doesn't give it anymore credence and the government is not here to support your moral crusades.

      Libertarians have moral beliefs around the role of government and paying taxes - They still go to jail for not paying taxes though

      Standing by your morals, if nothing else is the act of accepting the consequences of your actions, so if a person comes to me and says I can't afford a baby but I can't have an abortion

      I say ADOPT! put it up for adoption, you already admitted that you can't raise it, you either can or you can't which is it? yes we would all like government handouts, yes life is hard, my life is hard, can I get a government handout?

      report
    7. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      ohh and your captain of your subbies rugby team and your fat and out of shape? your a bad rugby player, you might be a good part time hobbyist

      you get the south auckland under 17 team against you - smashed, those are big boys and they play rough, you are not a good rugby player, you might be good "Considering", as in you might be a good part time rugby player, you might be good for someone who treats it as a hobby and doesn't take it that seriously.....there is no such thing as social parenting like social rugby, or there might be but I am guessing it's not very effective

      report
    8. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Semantics. Call it moral register or belief. I know my wife would never even consider an abortion and we are both atheist; there is no "belief" system there. We don't have a moral crusade, just a sense of human decency. It is clear you do not and that is a sad day for you, not me.

      Lucky for those in this country that have a sense of humanity that there actually is welfare for those that MORALLY object to abortion and do not want to be forced to put their child up for adoption. According to you…

      Read more
    9. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      I morally object to your moral objections?

      merely wrapping an idea in morality is not a Ctrl-Alt-Delete for an argument

      you can keep repeating that it is a moral belief, register, semantics, either way morality is about accepting responsibility for your actions

      You either

      - Can raise the baby and do not need my money
      - Can't raise the baby > in which case you have options of being a bad parent, aborting or adopting

      Take some personal responsibility for your actions and don't demand money from me whilst holding another human life hostage

      report
  2. Adam Cardilini

    PhD Candidate

    This is what Tony Abbot not breaking promises looks like. Tone plz.

    report
  3. N Wilson

    Biologist

    It isn't well known but the cuts to foreign aid are a direct Abbott broken promise: "our policy is to take foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income…It does remain the commitment of the Government..." The Millenium Development Goals are just another thing of worth to be spat upon.

    The destruction of ARENA as part of their scorched earth of anything renewable energy related to sandbag the interests of fossil fuel miners and generators is a broken promise. (One assumes the "million solar rooftops" program under their Direct Action plan is also gone as a broken promise.)

    They can be trusted on some things though, like targeting the poor, the environment and anything public while protecting and fostering corporate interests by privatisation and, not withstanding the short term tax increase, high income earners.

    report
    1. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to N Wilson

      Another mostly unknown broken promise is the that of a federally funded boat to monitor/stop now illegal Japanese whaling in our seas. The coalition renigged on that commitment and instead, sent an aircraft to do a fly over. As pointed out by Greenpeace and WWF the $150M purpose built boat was to turn around any vessels, instead it was seconded by Immigration minister as a tropical water taxi off christmas island. Fly overs are a pointless exercise as a plane is unable to have any effect on the situation…

      Read more
  4. Daniel Cotton

    Physicist/Astronomer

    I'm not that much of a fan of this budget, but it's a bit disingenuous to put a cross next to paid parental leave as a broken promise in the 'age of entitlement' box.

    For starters, paid parental leave linked to a mother's wage has been a promise of the coalition (one of the few I like) for the last 2 elections.

    Secondly, the threshold is less than that promised.

    So, you could put a cross next to it in terms of the original $150,000 threshold being reduced to $100,000. But to put it as a…

    Read more
    1. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Daniel Cotton

      While I also believe the PPL scheme is a good one, you are confusing promises, or broken ones, with good or bad policy. It is promises against delivery. The actual outcome is two broken promises. Campaigning on $150K and now delivering $100K is one broken promise, however increasing it at all, (from the 14 weeks minimum wage currently offered) which they have, IS contradictory to the repeated slogan "the age of entitlement is over" and deserves the red cross. That it is a good policy does not matter…

      Read more
    2. Daniel Cotton

      Physicist/Astronomer

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      My argument with you is that it is purely subjective as to what you consider the 'age of entitlement.' PPL is an area where Australia has been lagging behind the rest of the world.

      The Coalition has consistently argued that an appropriate level of entitlement in terms of PPL is 6 months paid at the parent's salary with a cap of $150,000. And then they've reduced the cap, they argue, in line with their other cuts to welfare.

      Honestly, you can't call this a beak of the promise to 'end the age of entitlement' when the Coalition has consistently promised it. You might consider it a promised exception to the promise to end the age of entitlement if you like. But there is no way that improving PPL is a broken promise of the LNP Coalition.

      report
    3. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Daniel Cotton

      Entitlement:
      : the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

      : a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

      We obviously don't agree and it just it is just semantics anyway. I can see where you are coming from but you can guess, guess I agree with The Conversations critique of the budget promises. My reason is that increasing any current entitlement (increase) is not "ending the age of entitlement"; it is…

      Read more
    4. Daniel Cotton

      Physicist/Astronomer

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      If you want to go by that definition then keeping any welfare payment at all is breaking the promise to end the age of entitlement.

      Did the voting public think that was what was meant? I don't think so.

      There was a promise to not touch pensions (that was, by most definitions, broken). If pensions had been untouched would we be arguing that that was also a broken promise since it maintained entitlement? Or would we consider that leaving pensions alone was a promised exception to that promise? I reckon it would be the latter.

      report
    5. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Daniel Cotton

      It is actually the first part I was referring to: "the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)"

      I agree this is what the LNP meant, as did you, but I still feel increasing any entitlement is going back on the promise to end them.

      If the pensioners were left alone I would have been happier (I may be on one in many years myself), and I may have let no change to entitlements slide, but I definitely believe an increase would have broken a promise to end the age of entitlements" and I see this as the same thing with PPL. I just struggle to accept the claim of ending entitlements is synonymous with increasing some.

      In the end it is a shame we have to validate and discuss "levels" of broken promises. I think the most visible promises from the LNP were the "no cuts to; ABC, SBS, Medicare, pensions" etc. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the statement of ending :the age of entitlement anyway. What a mess.

      report
    6. Daniel Cotton

      Physicist/Astronomer

      In reply to Steven Fuller

      I guess the difference here is that I don't consider PPL paid at your wage to be a "special" privilege. Just an ordinary one in the context of what other nations are doing.

      I would also say that PPL isn't something you are just given. Time off work bringing a new child into the world isn't a holiday. It is, in a manner of speaking, work done properly bringing in to the world the next generation of our society.

      Without leave indexed at the parent's wage it is work that comes with a financial disadvantage. I don't believe that any society interested in its continued prosperity should abide a system that financially disadvantages parents for doing the work of parents.

      report
  5. Ben Marshall
    Ben Marshall is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Writer

    How did media commentators find themselves making oversubsidised and wealthy individuals and companies with tax minimisation turned up to 11 equivalent to some poor kid on the dole or in a wheelchair? Seriously. wtf. Stop it. They're not equivalent.

    report
  6. David Scolyer

    logged in via email @netspace.net.au

    When voters cannot trust the statements of a political party to be an accurate guide for their voting decision, democracy has been debased. When a government does the opposite of what it promised before an election it shows its utter contempt for voters. Why should voters then cooperate with that government? I doubt this Budget is what most people had in mind when they voted Liberal. Perhaps they should tell the Prime Minister so. And the Treasurer. And their local Member. See http://www.australia.gov.au/directories/contact-parliament#Contactyourlocalmember. Outrage may not be enough however. Perhaps some brave Liberal backbenchers will be willing to cross the floor to stop the neoconservatives who have hijacked the Australian Parliament and are acting contrary to the wishes of the majority of Australian voters.

    report
    1. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to David Scolyer

      I doubt there are many truly appreciative of this budget. The loyal right will defend it, however deep down their heart will not be in it.

      There were two camps on this, one that believed the rhetoric and MSM cries of a budget emergency, and those that understood things not to be so bad. This is a hatchet job on the most vulnerable in the country, under the guise of ending 'entitlement' to control the debt. That will defintely not keep the left happy. Those on the right that wanted action on the 'crisis' will find the budget has not gone far enough with only 0.1% reduction in spending and a forecast of increasing debt in the next four years.

      The most telling sign of this budget is the last stament. Reducing spending by 0.1% and increasing the debt does not back up the claim of a budget 'crisis'.

      report
    2. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to David Scolyer

      If I had to guess, the majority of the public had no idea who they were voting for as they are largely uninformed and apathetic about anything that doesn't directly affect them.

      Most people vote out of tradition - I"ve always supported the blues...why? because I'm a blues supporter

      or based on what their peer group are doing - if your friday night is a bunch of tradies at the pub talking about how women are wrecking the joint - your probably going to vote libs or nats

      that's about the extent of most political thought in this country

      report
  7. Oliver Lloyd

    logged in via Facebook

    Technically, the government can wiggle out of many of its broken promises regarding cuts, depending on how you define a 'cut'. Is it a reduction in the overall amount of spending from the previous fiscal year (e.g. $5bn spent in 2013, down to $4.8bn); a reduction in the promised allocation of a previous govt (e.g. instead of $5.3bn in 2014, it will be $5.2bn); or a reduction in the growth rate or indexation of future spending? There are a few examples of that last type of 'cut' in the infographic, which suggests that an area that is growing in spending by, say, 3% in the next decade, instead of the previous 4% is still labelled as a 'cut', even though spending is still increasing from the previous year.

    Also, it's a bit dubious to label deregulation of uni fees a 'cut', when in fact that will mean the government will actually have to spend more on HELP fees on behalf of students. It may not be good policy, but I wouldn't call it a cut.

    report
  8. Don Card

    Independent Media

    where is the 'heavy lifting' by the polies? the 'age of entitlement' is well and truly still open slather for them and their corrupt and greedy cronies and corporations while the people and families who pay are the un-empowered and poorly off. their sheer bald faced arrogance and total lying hypocrisy is gob-smacking.

    no change to car lease, no change to super loopholes, no changes to force Google et al to pay some decent taxes, etc, (and of no increase or change in mining tax, after all, they are down to their $1billion or more in profits). and instead simply hammer people who have got so little in the first place

    the so-called 'debt levy' is the only decent progressive measure and idiots like ALP are decrying it, when they should be saying that is about time the extremely well-off and rich pay a bit more tax (of course they get out of most any way).

    report
    1. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Don Card

      It is ludicrous that the ALP might challenge one of the only decently progressive aspects of this budget. A quick calc shows an extra 2% on earnings over $180K will cost me about $60 per month. That is nothing really, however government incompetence and a 70 year retirement age suggest it would be better in my own hand.

      I would argue from my own perspective that this is not a rich tax, as I certainly do not fall in this category. I have no cause to complain compared to many however, and this seems like a reasonable tax to me. If only those of far greater means were not shirking their tax liability, I would feel a lot better about it.

      report
  9. Sholto Maud

    Database coordinator

    Perhaps require Representations and Warranties prior to the acquisition of political power? "... In M&A transactions, representations and warranties are given by both parties to disclose material information. ... A breach or inaccuracy of a representation or warranty can also provide the other party with a right to terminate or refuse to close the transaction ... " http://us.practicallaw.com/8-382-3760

    report
  10. Kevin Robb

    Retired Radio Announcer/Musician

    To sum it all up this budget was 100% based on an ideology and an obsession with budget surpluses.
    Any budget that tries to predict what will happen in 2 years is near impossible but 20, that is no more than soothsaying.
    I would like to see what the polls think of it but alas publication of any poll that is negative to the Libs is as scarce as honesty within this Government.
    We will see Labor returned in 2016, and one with the biggest landslide ever.

    report
    1. Steven Fuller

      Asset Management

      In reply to Kevin Robb

      Add to this that one of the biggest Labor failures was to defend their position on spending, budget deficit and policies. They were largely silent, albeit with the majority of MSM against them. Some of the blame lies with the debt that Labor left the country but that could be forgiven by the majority if their case was clearly put forward. They were also unable to counter any of the deceitful criticisms directed at them by their opponents.

      Of course Abbot won't go to the polls early, that is a…

      Read more
    2. Daniel Cotton

      Physicist/Astronomer

      In reply to Kevin Robb

      "I would like to see what the polls think of it but alas publication of any poll that is negative to the Libs is as scarce as honesty within this Government."

      What are you talking about? The polls have shown Labor ahead on 2PP since December last year: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/

      The ALP is now within a percentage point of the LNP on primary vote as well, though both major parties are below 40%, with the GRN, PUP and OTH vote also all up since the last election.

      report
  11. Shauna Murray

    Associate Professor; ARC Future Fellow, Plant Functional Biology and Climate Change Cluster at University of Technology, Sydney

    Can you add a few others to the graphic?

    For example foreign aid to be 0.5% of GNP- this had bipartisan support.

    Also its not only that University fees have been deregulated. There is a 20% cut in funding to Universities.

    Their promise to fix the budget deficit? However, most of the money saved has gone on new spending initiatives.

    The promise to be a PM for indigenous Australians? .. indigenous programs have been cut by $500 million.

    report
    1. Sean Douglas

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Shauna Murray

      Yes .. "There is a 20% cut in funding to Universities." That is a biggy. $80 billion taken from the states in health and education .... when Abbott spoke about a UNITY TICKET on health, education and the NDIS.
      Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior by Paul K Piff et al
      Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth…

      Read more
  12. Paul Olsen

    Teacher

    It appears the age of entitlement is over, the groups hit hardest are certainly not entitled, and now even more at a disadvantage. Higher education, health costs and lets not forget the flow on of costs that will occur in these key areas.

    report