Liberals secret welfare review

[Deleted]

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/anger-as-unions-told-coalition-welfare-review-is-internal/story-fn59niix-1226866397924#mm-register


THE TRADE union movement is outraged that it’s been excluded from the Abbott government’s review of the nation’s welfare regime, after it received a letter from Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews’ office saying it was “internal”.

A letter signed by Mr Andrews’ chief of staff says: “The reference group has undertaken some initial preliminary consultations with some invited stakeholders to assist in framing their initial thinking.

“There are currently no plans for a comprehensive consultation process or a formal call for public input as the welfare review is predominantly an internal government process.”

ACTU assistant secretary Tim Lyons told The Australian a secretive review “of only parts of the system without a clear objective is exactly how we end up with flawed and ineffective policy outcomes”.

“Refusing to engage in meaningful consultation with a broad cross section of interested and relevant parties guarantees a bad outcome and guarantees that another ‘policy review’ will be needed again within a few years.

“It defies belief that the government can conduct a welfare review into only discrete parts of the system.

“Any genuine review would look at the intersection of tax, welfare and work policies,” Mr Lyons said.

“This welfare review process makes the Prime Minister’s secretive commission of audit look transparent and is a complete abdication of the government’s responsibility to consult on and develop public policy in a meaningful, transparent manner.

“This government keeps forgetting that they were elected to govern for the nation, not just a selective group of yes men type supporters.

“Ensuring we have an effective, compassionate and sustainable welfare policy that looks after the most vulnerable members of our society is far too important to happen behind closed doors.”

But a spokeswoman for Mr Andrews said it was always to be an internal review.

“The government has been upfront with the Australian people that we are conducting a welfare review.

“The review is internal with a reference group led by Patrick McClure OA. That there would be targeted ‘soft consultations’ was made known in January” the spokeswoman said

[Deleted]

Its not true they haven't consulted anyone about their welfare review, l'm sure they asked Gina Reinhart and Murcdoch about what changes they should make to the DSP and Newstart.

[latindancer]

Meanwhile :

Queensland's politicians have been handed massive pay increases, with some hikes totalling more than the average Australian's salary.

Premier Campbell Newman's annual salary will rise by $67,525, or 21.67 per cent, to $379,160.

Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk will pocket an extra $79,464, or 34.4 per cent, to take home $310,066.

While the hikes were decided by an independent tribunal, both leaders are under extreme pressure from unions to reject the "obscene" rises.

Ms Palaszczuk wants the premier to overturn the decision with laws, but wouldn't commit to knocking back her extra cash if he didn't act.

Mr Newman declined to forfeit his raise to help pay down the state's spiralling debt and argued it wouldn't make a dent.

He also dodged questions over whether MPs deserved more pay.

"Whatever they say, it will still be something that many people won't be happy with," he told Fairfax Radio.

"Politicians shouldn't be setting their own pay and they're not now and that's the most important thing."

Mr Newman set up the Queensland Independent Remuneration Tribunal in July last year.

He was forced to back away from a 42 per cent wage increase for MPs which had been approved by Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney while the premier holidayed in Vietnam.

The tribunal set a base wage for MPs in October, but on Thursday released its new formula for calculating the salaries of office holders.

Tribunal chair, Professor Tim Brailsford, says Mr Newman's total salary and additional benefit is less than the average remuneration of some non-profit chief executives and lower than 14 directors-general of government departments.

Prof Brailsford said that in the last 10 years, the position of the premier had experienced the second lowest increase in total salary in comparison across the state.

He rejected a number of submissions for senior office holders to be on par with directors-general, arguing politicians shouldn't enter the fray for money.

"We have a strong view that there is a strong societal role associated with being an MP," he said.

"If we benchmarked to private sector entities, as we all know, that is a comparison which would result in a salary which would be quite obscene."

Public service union Together questioned the independence of the tribunal.

"This is an obscene pay increase delivered by a hand-picked tribunal, from legislation written by the premier," secretary Alex Scott said.

The Queensland Council of Unions said the government was hypocritical, after fighting minor wage increases for public servants.

"Ordinary families struggle to deal with increasing power and water bills," he said.

The pay rises will be back paid from July 2013.

au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/22199259/qld-premier-gets-70-000-pay-rise/

[Deleted]

Yes Latindancer, l guess if the politians can save money by cutting back welfare spending theres more money in the public purse for their huge pay rises and other perks.

[zingzingzing]

No surprise there.

It's the liberals.

[Denis-NFA]

Mar 27, 2014 20:52:46 GMT 7 zingzingzing said:

No surprise there.

It's the liberals.

It is just "the system"

[Banjo]

The history of politicians salaries in the Westminster system of government is quite interesting.
They were originally strongly opposed by the conservative parties... as most of them were back then... because it would encourage the riffraff to enter politics instead of having to work at honest toil to make a living.

It's generally agreed these days that politics has to be a paid profession, it's the amount that cannot be decided upon.

[jamie]

Came across this, if anyone missed it.

Charities warn they can't fill in the gaps if Abbott cuts welfare
April 16, 2014

Anna Patty
Workplace Editor

Charity groups have warned they cannot be expected to fill in the gaps if the federal government walks away from its provision of welfare and social services for Australia's most vulnerable people when it delivers its budget.

Non-government agencies, church-based groups, academics and unions held a crisis meeting in Sydney on Tuesday to raise the alarm about Abbott government policies they fear threaten the future of welfare and public services.

Dr John Falzon, chief executive officer of the St Vincent de Paul Society, said charity goups should not be expected to fill in the gaps left by the federal government.

"It is just not good enough to say charity will be there to fill in the gaps, because charity is not the answer," he said.

"Charities like Vinnies will always be there for people, but this is a real lack of strategic thinking and vision from any government that says let charities sort it out.

"Government has a responsibility to do what markets cannot and that is provide equitable access to those essentials of life such as housing, education and employment.

"We are deeply concerned that an attempt will be made to bring the budget into the black on the backs of those who are the most vulnerable in Australian society."

Dr Falzon said he feared people would be "systematically humiliated" by being pushed more deeply into poverty.
Professor Barbara Pocock, a workplace expert from the University of South Australia said the federal government needed to look beyond raising the GST to how it collects taxes more fairly.

"How do we look at the balance of service provision? What's the role of the not for profit sector, the commodified market and government provision?" she said.

ACTU president Ged Kearney said a range of groups at the Sydney crisis meeting were concerned about the Abbott government's rhetoric on welfare and social services.

"They want to shrink welfare, they want to shrink public services, they want to shrink the role of government," she said.

“It's worrying that the government is supportive of increasing the retirement age, but ignores the needs of young workers who are being shut out of the job market.

“Young people want to work, are ready to work, and yet the Abbott government is instead focusing on getting every last drop out of 69-year-olds.”

The national director of Uniting Justice Australia, the Reverend Eleni Poulos, said the government should not only focus on the budget bottom line, but play an active part in building a healthy society that cares for its most vulnerable.
"We are increasingly concerned about government policy's focus on finances and on the economy as an end in itself," she said.

Nadine Flood, the national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, said government estimates of budget savings suggested between 14,500 and 26,500 public sector jobs could be cut in the next three years. The CSIRO has already announced it will cut 300 jobs in the next financial year.

"Our concern is the commission of audit and federal budget may contain further sweeping cuts to public services and jobs," she said.

"We are really worried about job losses. A lot of them are in regional communities around Australia where they are seeing unemployment rising.
"Public sector workers are also really worried about the community they serve and the impact of cuts on the services they provide."

Read more: www.smh.com.au/nsw/charities-warn-they-cant-fill-in-the-gaps-if-abbott-cuts-welfare-20140416-36qzd.html#ixzz2zWUizRI4

[Banjo]

“Young people want to work, are ready to work, and yet the Abbott government is instead focusing on getting every last drop out of 69-year-olds.”

[jamie]

In most Asian countries, especially Singapore, Malaysia, they been having superannuation since the 70s. We started too late in 1992, thanks to Keating foresight. These countries also required you to retire at 55, ( now up to 60, if you so voluntary choose to keep working ). The retirement at 55, is so that the younger generation have a chance to have a crack at your job. Also, with the super withdrawal, at 55, you are still able to travel, enjoy some time with the family and friends or whatever pursuit of happiness you feel up to. There are no dole or pension in Asia. ( only if you are a govt servant ). Then again, everybody survives day to day, whether selling fried chicken, noodles etc.. on the street or beach. Won't happen in Aus due to our health laws.

If the pension age in Aus will be to increase to 70 ( also means you can only withdraw your super at 70 ), how fit and healthy, if you are still alive, to have the stamina to drag yourself around? or if you decide to travel over Asia? Arthritis and dementia, your travelling companion?

So, if after all your working life, slaving up to 70, this might be the retirement you look forward to? and those hard hearted lawmakers get to enjoy their lifetime " entitlements " as soon as they leave their jobs?

[latindancer]

Apr 21, 2014 19:48:42 GMT 7 jamie said:

The national director of Uniting Justice Australia, the Reverend Eleni Poulos, said the government should not only focus on the budget bottom line, but play an active part in building a healthy society that cares for its most vulnerable.
"We are increasingly concerned about government policy's focus on finances and on the economy as an end in itself," she said.

Well said !

[dani]

m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/cuts-date-imminent-hockey-20140422-zqxuz.html