Budget still unfair - no surprise
Families with children on the lowest incomes will bear the brunt of the federal government's budget cuts, while high income families will actually see their disposable incomes increase slightly over the next four years.
New analysis from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has shown how the government's budget consolidation - for the second year in a row - is being made at the expense of the less well-off.
Pretty simple Geo.
The lower strata do not vote for them no matter what and the upper level does.
Nothing to do with fairness. All about watching out for your own backside.
It be the way of Pollydom.
SD
That is a pretty fair assessment SD. But I would like to see a government that governed for all Australians, not just the wealthy (which does not include me)
Well SD its not hard to govern or budget for all and I would argue its easier. Ideology that is flawed IMO and outsourcing policy to business backers is not governing for all or even half of Australia.
As an aside I saw a piece on legislation coming up to do with maritime shipping concerned with crews on coastal trade. 15 ships are doing it and this govt wants to have no Australian conditions for crews for six months type thing. Now Howard destroyed the ANL and now this mob want to destroy what little is left of Australian crews. Thats a perfect recipe of ideology ( anti union ) and backing foreign business. In the USA all coastal shipping has to be manned by american crews as are the ships, the Jones Act.
Personally, I see no problem with this proposed legislation and it should bring down the cost of coastal shipping here. These ships usually originate in asia where wages and conditions are lower - just because the ship happens to be in Australian waters, I see no reason why the owners should be paying more to crew. When our airlines land in foreign ports, do we pay crew less or more because of local conditions? - dont think so.
To the best of my knowledge (and I am working in the shipping industry) there are no ships owned or operated by Australian companies, so we would not appear to be causing any disadvantage or competitive imbalance with the proposed legislation. AUSTRALIAN Unions should be protecting AUSTRALIAN workers and not concern themselves with crews of foreign vessels.
"
“What this government hopes is that because ships are beyond the breakers and that people can’t see every employment condition on a ship, they can get away with seeing third world conditions employed on ships which carry cargoes around the Australian shoreline. This is unacceptable.”
“When you are working in Australia, whether it be on a building site or on a road, or on a rail system, or on a ship, you should be subject to the same wages and conditions. It’s as simple as that. To undermine that risks that being transferred onto other industries,” the shadow infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese said.
Crumlin said the deregulation was “reckless and ill-considered” and that it had national security implications. "
Hugo Howard flogged our ships off, the ANL. On your argument or reasing it would be ok to have maids or farm workers on Cambodian rates in Australia if employed by an overseas agent but working in Australia.
Not at all Geoff.....these ships are foreign owned and operated and the crew sign on at the rates offered. To the best of my knowledge, they dont usually even get off the boats when in port. By YOUR reasoning, when Australian airline staff or other workers are in an Asian country, they should be paid the low rates and poor conditions locally applicable?
I agree that when ANYONE is working actually IN AUSTRALIA, they should be paid according to award rates and conditions, but foreign sailors ARE NOT working in Australia, their vessels just happen to be in Australian waters. Should their pay and conditions vary with every port they stop at? - YOU could have that paymasters job.
agree with your gist but these ships are doing coastal trade not international trade ie a foreign country to Australia.
I could be wrong but last I heard all American coastal shipping was American crewed.
Not arguing the case one way or another but it would appear it is not just an Oz thing.
SD
Not only crewed SD
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261), also known as the Jones Act, is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine.[1] Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.[2] The Act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones.
Geoff, the problem is that Australia has no coastal shipping trade for these ships to compete with. Without these foreign ships, Australian businesses would have to move all freight by road or rail which is much more expensive (usually). In paying these sailors higher wages and offering better conditions while in Australia, we are only shooting ourselves in the foot and making seafreight charges here higher than they need to be.
Hugo
Well its an egg and chicken thing except Howard removed our shipping ( ANL ). There is enough cargo for the ships now. Its not a case of a ship doing two months coastal shipping then going off to Japan or wherever. Thats why the legislation I mentioned is for 6 months not two or three months. Its another example of using foreign labor to replace aussies that this govt is adept at. If its not finishing off the car industry its making it easier to get 457 visa workers in. BTW I also blame Labor for lowering the tarriff on cars too low when it should have stopped at 15% which is still lower than other car producing nations.
KFC,
We did have strong coastal shipping back a bit.
Exactly what happened to it I am none too sure.
I moved a car on a coastal ship from Darwin to Perth around 1970. And the reverse around 1975
SD
Howard flogged it off SD, ANL Australian National Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_National_Line
Geo,
It would appear there is little Pollies do that is of any real long term benefit for the country.
Pollies appear to be an industry unto themselves.
SD
My understanding of our coastal shipping is that ships originate in asia, travel down our east coast and around to Fremantle, picking up and dropping cargo at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and occasionally Adelaide. They then head back north to Asia. There is no availability for coastal shipping from west to east. I understand that there are one or two small operations that may head north from Freo to Darwin but these operate only on a needs basis. Should the day come when Australia again has a coastal shipping facility, I would agree that foreign sailors should be paid the same as our own seamen, until then however, it would be senseless to do so.
Hugo
The govt intends to introduce this legislation which means ending our coastal shipping facility. So foreign ships with foreign crews plying the domestic trade routes. Similar with the Geelong Star super trawler which is 80% foreign owned and profits from our seas go overseas while depleting our waters.
Under the new rules, if the Geelong Star, operated by Seafish Tasmania, catches one more dolphin it will be evicted from the fishery in which the kill occurred for six months.
Small Pelagic Fisheries Association chairman Grahame Turk said the new restrictions would make life too hard for the trawler.
"I think it's probably too tough but then again nobody wants to kill dolphins, either," he said.
"So it's understandable, but it's a very tough response.
the Budget papers under Joe Hockey have not included the usual tables showing the impact of the budget on the incomes of various types of households. This year, as was the case last year, the ALP commissioned the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), a unit based at the University of Canberra which is used by both side of politics, to replicate the tables.
They show that even when the more generous initiatives of this year's budget are included, they can't undo the damage of last year.
NATSEM found that by 2018-19 (the last year covered in the forward estimates), the disposable income for couples with children in the lowest income quintile will be 7.1 per cent lower than it is currently.
These households who earn up to $47,000 a year income are the worst hit. By contrast, couples with children in the top income quintile (i.e. the richest 20 per cent, and with a household income over above $119,000) will be 0.2 per cent better off:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/jericho-unfair-budget-isnt-saved-by-hopeful-thinking/6498480
NATSEM ?divides the community into five segments, or quintiles, each with a little over 2.5 million families. It has found the government's families package - including its popular childcare payments - will benefit middle- to high-income families more than low-income families.
Advertisement
It has also found the poorest 20 per cent of households with children will lose up to 7.1 per cent of their total disposable income over the next four years, after all budget measures are taken into account.
By contrast, households with children in the top 20 per cent will see their disposable incomes increase slightly, by 0.2 per cent, by the end of 2018/19.
So the budget is still unfair in its treatment of the less wealthy while leaving the well off untouched or just slightly better. No surprise although the spin is better this year and the cigars are missing.