Australian Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott's double dipping lie is an insult to working women

On Mother’s Day 2015 the Abbott Government announced that it would be removing all or part of federal paid parental scheme payments to an estimated 79,000 working women who take maternity leave from 1 July 2016 onwards.

Under federal legislation these women had an expectation of receiving up to $11,500 for maternity leave of 18 weeks duration.

In the interview with Laurie Oakes the Treasurer Joe Hockey used the word double-dipping to describe the lawful right of working women to access both the federal paid parental leave scheme and that of their employer if there was one in place:

At the moment people can claim parental leave payments from both the government and their employers so they are effectively double dipping. We’re going to stop that. You can’t double dip, you can’t get both parental leave pay from your employer and from taxpayers.

The Double Dipping Lie Was Repeated In The 2015-16 Budget Papers Two Days Later

This is an extract from the consolidated Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16:

Removing Double-Dipping from Parental Leave Pay

The Government will achieve savings of $967.7 million over four years by removing the ability for individuals to double dip when applying for the existing Parental Leave Pay (PLP) scheme, from 1 July 2016. Currently individuals are able to access Government assistance in the form of PLP, in addition to any employer-provided parental leave entitlements. The Government will remove the ability for individuals to double dip, by taking payments from both their employer and the Government.

The Truth About The Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme

This is an extract from the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Act 2010:

Division 1A—Object of this Act

3A  Object of this Act

             (1)  The object of this Act is to provide financial support to primary carers (mainly birth mothers) of newborn and newly adopted children, in order to:

                     (a)  allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child’s birth or adoption; and

                     (b)  enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; and

                     (c)  encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and

                     (d)  promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.

             (2)  Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

             (3)  The financial support provided by this Act is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child. [my red bolding]

It is noticeable that the main budget decision-makers in 2015, all six members of the federal Expenditure Review Committee, are privileged white males living off the public purse - with one receiving a salary higher than that of the U.S. president and another being a millionaire many times over.

It is also worth noting that this scaling back of the federal paid parental leave scheme was not put to voters at the last general election.

UPDATE

It would seem that despite their attempts to vilify working mothers, Coalition MPs not only voted with the then Labor Government to introduce paid parental leave - some of their wives/partners accessed both the government and their employer's leave schemes.

ABC News 14 May2015:

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.

"We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.

Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".

But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife received benefits from her employer and the Government PPL scheme.

"Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.

The Australian 17 June 2010:

AUSTRALIA has its first universal paid parental leave scheme, catching up with the rest of the developed world, after the Coalition voted with the Rudd government to back the historic legislation.

Can a photograph be any more contrived than this one?

Photo: Andrew Meares

Prime Minister Tony Abbott appearing to 'console' treasurer Joe Hockey during a prearranged and very posed photo shoot promoting 2015-16 budget papers preparation.

Unsolicited ratbaggery

Residents in the Lower Clarence area have been receiving hand-delivered plain white envelopes addressed "HELLO NEIGHBOURS". 

"There's nothing too wrong about that." I hear you say.

Well ... take a look at the contents (2 pages) of the envelope.

Page 1

Page 2

Small puzzles in the Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget Papers

Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 contains a number of small puzzles:

* Treasury estimates it will be raising $1.18 billion between 12 May 2015 and 30 June 2019 from decisions taken but not yet announced. Apparently we can all look forward to budgetary surprises scattered like rose petals across our path during the next four years.

* The nature of the Combatting [sic] multinational tax avoidance — stronger penalties measures is such that a reliable estimate cannot be provided so there are no figures given for any financial year. However, the Abbott Government expects an unquantifiable gain to revenue over the forward estimates period from companies with global revenues of more than $1 billion. It has this expectation even though there is no proposal to make unlawful the billion dollar tax avoidance schemes currently used by large multinationals such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

* Removing access to the government paid parental leave scheme for pregnant women if their employer has a parental leave scheme is listed as an “expense” to the Australian Government of $1.67 billion between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019 and will only achieve “savings” of an est. $967.7 million over the same period. Perhaps a reader can explain that one.

* The Australian Consensus — establishment is listed as an expense but no figure is attached for any financial year. Despite the fact that $4 million over four years commencing in 2014-15 (announced as a grant to the University of Western Australia in April 2015 which it quickly returned to federal government coffers) is mentioned in the text, as is the government commitment to go forward with establishing this centre. Because this budget item was not included in the previous 2014-15 budget and is merely a title in this year’s budget it is a rather a strange little orphan whose inheritance is probably stuffed under the education minister’s mattress.

* Government expenses relating to Managing Biosecurity Risks — expanded surveillance and offshore audit are nfp (not for publication). Apparently cost estimates associated with this scheme are too sensitive for voters’ eyes while government is allegedly still in ongoing consultation with industry.

* Cost of the Home Insulation Program Industry Payment Scheme — establishment is nfp. It would appear that the transparent, equitable and evidence-based process for the assessment of business losses and the making of payments to over 200 businesses promised by the Abbott Government doesn’t extend to providing a budget estimate of the total cost of this scheme which was announced in December 2014 and was to be completed by mid-2015.

* One-off Government Response to the Home Insulation Program Royal Commission — act of grace payments made in 2014-15 are nfp. Again, the total cost is not for voters’ eyes and this item brings the total number of not for publication items to around nine.

Who is to blame for Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget?

“The budget belongs to no individual minister, it belongs to all of us but it particularly belongs to all the members of the Expenditure Review Committee.”

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, 7 May 2015]

Federal Expenditure Review Committee

CHAIR: Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Liberal Party Leader)

DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer Joe Hockey (Liberal Party MP)

MEMBERS:

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss (National Party Leader)

Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison (Liberal Party MP)

Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann (Liberal Party MP)

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg (Liberal Party MP)

Make no mistake, the contents of the Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget Papers are heavily influence by the worldview of Tony Abbott.

He would not have been able to resist the urge to dominate and override his ministers, as his frequent 'captain's picks' demonstrate. 

The Australian general public overwhelming rejected a national medical records database but the Abbott Government is still insisting on gathering every piece of medical data on citizens that is available

On 10 May 2015 the Australian Minister for Health Sussan Ley freely admitted that two years and ten months after the federal government’s national database of personally controlled health records (PCEHR) opened for business as eHealth less-than one-in-ten Australians have decided to opt-in to this scheme.

Less than one-in-ten appears to indicate that an estimated 18 million adults have decided to not hand over their own medical records and those of their children to a federal government agency.

The Abbott Government’s response, to what can only be seen as an overwhelming rejection by both the general public and GPs, is to insist that all citizens now be mandatorily included in this national database which will allegedly have a new opt-out provision.

The reason given for this move to add every citizen to a re-worked national database is a recommendation contained in an ‘independent’ six-week review of eHealth by a three person panel ordered by then Minister for Health Peter Dutton in November 2013.

This recommendation by Messrs. Royle (Australian Private Hospitals Association), Hambleton (Australian Medical Association) & Walduck (Australia Post) was for an opt-out model to be implemented by 1 January 2015 as there was little meaningful use of the existing opt-in eHealth database.

A brief background of the evolution of this national database on North Coast Voices:

Friday, 17 April 2009  So you want to look through my medical records?

Wednesday, 10 June 2009  Federal Labor and Health Minister Roxon crossing a bridge too far

Thursday, 13 August 2009 Hoyden Laurelhed quite rightly expresses disquiet over Federal Government progression of a national e-health data base

Sunday, 24 January 2010 Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon is not telling the truth about the Medicare e-card 

Thursday, 28 January 2010  e-Health: something's rotten in the State of Kevin

Sunday, 7 March 2010  And these are the people Rudd & Co intend to trust with access to a national database containing all your sensitive personal information?

Monday, 15 March 2010  Who's guarding the guards guarding your personal information?

Wednesday, 9 March 2011 Felling unwell? Take two aspirin and stay away from NSW hospitals

Thursday, 14 April 2011  PCEHR opt-in provision expected to allay privacy concerns. Pull the other one!

Tuesday, 13 December 2011 So you thought the Gillard Government had promised you would control your own e-Health database information?

Tuesday, 7 February 2012 eHealth – when “We told you so” gives no satisfaction

Wednesday, 7 November 2012 e-Health: join at your own risk

Tuesday, 6 May 2014 e-Health PCEHR platform: what is the Abbott Government trying to hide?