Premiers baulk at Libs' baby bill.      :)

    by: David Crowe and Sarah Martin
    From: The Australian
    August 20, 2013


WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.      :(

TONY Abbott has come under fire from premiers from both sides of politics for assuming they will contribute to his $5.5 billion parental leave scheme amid a wider fight about whether the costings for his policy add up.

West Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett said the scheme was too generous and, although his state would co-operate, it wouldn't contribute any money.      :(

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill rebuked the Opposition Leader for announcing a plan that needed state funds to work, and declared he would not make any commitment to help pay for the federal scheme.

And Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings slammed the "ill thought out" Coalition scheme and said her state could not countenance returning any "savings" on parental leave to Canberra.

The Premier's comments came as Jeff Kennett declared that Mr Abbott's paid parental leave scheme was an "extraordinary extravagance" and must be means tested. The former Victorian premier predicted it would be manipulated by families who had a baby for the benefit of full pay without working rather than because they wanted one.      :(


Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey insisted the costs of the scheme were "totally covered" but could not say how much of the total would be raised by a 1.5 per cent levy on big companies.

"Well it would have to be 50 or 60 or 70 per cent - I am not going to speculate," he told Melbourne radio host Neil Mitchell.

"I haven't got the numbers in front of me."

The Australian understands the $5.5bn cost of the scheme will be covered by less than $2.5bn a year from the levy, roughly $2bn in savings from replacing Labor's current parental leave scheme and about $1bn in further savings.

The $1bn includes contributions from state governments as well as savings on family tax benefits and income tax revenue on the parental leave payments.

The Australian has asked for the full costing of the policy by the Parliamentary Budget Office but the Coalition has declined to provide it, saying the details will be released before the election.      :(

The net cost of the Coalition's scheme will be more than 10 times higher than the government's.

Although the Coalition has quoted a cost for Labor's scheme of $2bn a year, the latest figures from the department show its gross cost was $1.4bn in 2011-12. Australian National University professor Peter Whiteford said this cost was reduced to a net figure of only $270 million because people claiming the paid parental leave no longer obtained the Baby Bonus and received reduced family benefits while paying more tax.

The Coalition has claimed a net cost for its scheme of $6.1bn in the first two years.

Mr Barnett said he supported paid parental leave but added: "I think in many respects it probably is too generous. If Tony Abbott becomes prime minister and that scheme is introduced, we will co-operate in terms of the administration, but we will not be contributing money to the scheme ... as has been suggested."

Mr Weatherill said he would not enter an agreement with the Coalition that might require spending cuts elsewhere. "(Mr Abbott) owes us the courtesy of actually communicating with us about his plans ... and he hasn't yet taken up that basic courtesy," Mr Weatherill said.

Ms Giddings said Tasmania would lose revenue if an Abbott government took power, and could not countenance any discussion about contributing to the scheme. "It is evidence of how ill thought out Tony Abbott's paid parental scene has been that states have not been consulted," she said.

Mr Abbott said there were 18 months to negotiate the details if the Coalition won the election.

the whole bloody thing is over generous..

wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.

What? Giving the richest women in Australia $75,000 to have a baby is too generous? Is Barnett a true Liberal or some kind of Commie in disguise?

True Colours wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:25am: WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.  What? Giving the richest women in Australia $75,000 to have a baby is too generous? Is Barnett a true Liberal or a Commie in disguise?

the whole scheme is pathetic...now even dads getting paid leave... what about granddad and nanny???..what about paid sibbling days...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

what about all those Saturdays and Sundays shouldnt they be at time and a half??????? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

it only took 24hrs for his scheme to unravel ... I know how to save him


stop the boats

True Colours wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:25am: WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.  What? Giving the richest women in Australia $75,000 to have a baby is too generous? Is Barnett a true Liberal or a Commie in disguise?

$150,000 = richest women in OZ...


;D ;D ;D ;D

FriYAY wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

$150,000 = richest women in OZ... ;D ;D ;D ;D

Women earning $150,000 and upwards get a $75,000 baby bonus from Abbott.

So a woman who gets a $1million per year gets $75,000 baby bonus under Abbott's scheme.

That is a disgrace. Taxpayers should not be forking out $75,000 to millionaires to have babies.

This is certainly one Coalition policy I can't support.
If Abbott is serious about getting the budget back in the black, then he can't afford to throw money away.
This country has had enough of taxpayers money being wasted.

True Colours wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:25am: WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.  What? Giving the richest women in Australia $75,000 to have a baby is too generous? Is Barnett a true Liberal or some kind of Commie in disguise?

I've got sneaking suspicion section of "Western 'burbs, Anycity, Australia" thinks this new version of the baby bonus means $75,000 for EVERY new mother - not just the RICHEST ones


Oh, BOY - are THEY in for a rude awakening !

Anyone that has a baby simply for the baby bonus and/or maternity scheme has rocks in their head.  Also, I strongly doubt that such people exist beyond a very, very small number.

wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

Premiers baulk at Libs' baby bill.      :)     by: David Crowe and Sarah Martin     From: The Australian     August 20, 2013 WA Premier Colin Barnett with Tony Abbott. Mr Barnett has labelled the Coalition parental leave scheme too generous.      :( TONY Abbott has come under fire from premiers from both sides of politics for assuming they will contribute to his $5.5 billion parental leave scheme amid a wider fight about whether the costings for his policy add up. West Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett said the scheme was too generous and, although his state would co-operate, it wouldn't contribute any money.      :( South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill rebuked the Opposition Leader for announcing a plan that needed state funds to work, and declared he would not make any commitment to help pay for the federal scheme. And Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings slammed the "ill thought out" Coalition scheme and said her state could not countenance returning any "savings" on parental leave to Canberra. The Premier's comments came as Jeff Kennett declared that Mr Abbott's paid parental leave scheme was an "extraordinary extravagance" and must be means tested. The former Victorian premier predicted it would be manipulated by families who had a baby for the benefit of full pay without working rather than because they wanted one.      :( Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey insisted the costs of the scheme were "totally covered" but could not say how much of the total would be raised by a 1.5 per cent levy on big companies. "Well it would have to be 50 or 60 or 70 per cent - I am not going to speculate," he told Melbourne radio host Neil Mitchell. "I haven't got the numbers in front of me." The Australian understands the $5.5bn cost of the scheme will be covered by less than $2.5bn a year from the levy, roughly $2bn in savings from replacing Labor's current parental leave scheme and about $1bn in further savings. The $1bn includes contributions from state governments as well as savings on family tax benefits and income tax revenue on the parental leave payments. The Australian has asked for the full costing of the policy by the Parliamentary Budget Office but the Coalition has declined to provide it, saying the details will be released before the election.      :( The net cost of the Coalition's scheme will be more than 10 times higher than the government's. Although the Coalition has quoted a cost for Labor's scheme of $2bn a year, the latest figures from the department show its gross cost was $1.4bn in 2011-12. Australian National University professor Peter Whiteford said this cost was reduced to a net figure of only $270 million because people claiming the paid parental leave no longer obtained the Baby Bonus and received reduced family benefits while paying more tax. The Coalition has claimed a net cost for its scheme of $6.1bn in the first two years. Mr Barnett said he supported paid parental leave but added: "I think in many respects it probably is too generous. If Tony Abbott becomes prime minister and that scheme is introduced, we will co-operate in terms of the administration, but we will not be contributing money to the scheme ... as has been suggested." Mr Weatherill said he would not enter an agreement with the Coalition that might require spending cuts elsewhere. "(Mr Abbott) owes us the courtesy of actually communicating with us about his plans ... and he hasn't yet taken up that basic courtesy," Mr Weatherill said. Ms Giddings said Tasmania would lose revenue if an Abbott government took power, and could not countenance any discussion about contributing to the scheme. "It is evidence of how ill thought out Tony Abbott's paid parental scene has been that states have not been consulted," she said. Mr Abbott said there were 18 months to negotiate the details if the Coalition won the election.

I agree & in fact, I would go further by phasing out Baby Bonus schemes altogether, as over time it will prove to be counter-"productive", as we will face future difficulties supporting a higher Population!

I wonder how many people on this forum who will be voting Coalition at this election support increasing it from the current level of $612 a week for 18 weeks to a maximum of $2,885 per week for 26 weeks, except for Andre because he thinks the government owes him something.

I know when people vote they should be basing their decision over a range of issues, so how about it guys and girls, honest answer, Do you support the Liberal Party's Paid Parental Leave scheme?

Verge wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

I wonder how many people on this forum who will be voting Coalition at this election support increasing it from the current level of $612 a week for 18 weeks to a maximum of $2,885 per week for 26 weeks, except for Andre because he thinks the government owes him something. I know when people vote they should be basing their decision over a range of issues, so how about it guys and girls, honest answer, Do you support the Liberal Party's Paid Parental Leave scheme?

I for one don't support it.  But I don't get to have a government that 100% agrees with my opinion.  I don't disagree with it on principle but rather applaud the principle.  However, I don't think we can afford it.

Ya know, Abbott et al say they've been working on this 'signature' policy for ages, and yet we now discover that the States (essential to its capacity to work) seem not to have been consulted.  Isn't this what Abbott 'sanctimoniously' accuses Rudd of?

Abbott's been telling porkies on this subject.

Aussie wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Ya know, Abbott et al say they've been working on this 'signature' policy for ages, and yet we now discover that the States (essential to its capacity to work) seem not to have been consulted.  Isn't this what Abbott 'sanctimoniously' accuses Rudd of? Abbott's been telling porkies on this subject.

as it is a federally funded payment I don't think the states' involvement is much.  I certainly don't think they will be paying for it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

Verge wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:19pm: I wonder how many people on this forum who will be voting Coalition at this election support increasing it from the current level of $612 a week for 18 weeks to a maximum of $2,885 per week for 26 weeks, except for Andre because he thinks the government owes him something. I know when people vote they should be basing their decision over a range of issues, so how about it guys and girls, honest answer, Do you support the Liberal Party's Paid Parental Leave scheme? I for one don't support it.  But I don't get to have a government that 100% agrees with my opinion.  I don't disagree with it on principle but rather applaud the principle.  However, I don't think we can afford it.

If the LibNats win government - can they claim a "mandate" to implement it ?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

as it is a federally funded payment I don't think the states' involvement is much

what part of the OP did you struggle with ?


wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

TONY Abbott has come under fire from premiers from both sides of politics for assuming they will contribute to his $5.5 billion parental leave scheme

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

I certainly don't think they will be paying for it.

maybe you should tell Tony that .....

name one pm that didnt have a testy relationship with the premiers

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:15pm: Verge wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:19pm: I wonder how many people on this forum who will be voting Coalition at this election support increasing it from the current level of $612 a week for 18 weeks to a maximum of $2,885 per week for 26 weeks, except for Andre because he thinks the government owes him something. I know when people vote they should be basing their decision over a range of issues, so how about it guys and girls, honest answer, Do you support the Liberal Party's Paid Parental Leave scheme? I for one don't support it.  But I don't get to have a government that 100% agrees with my opinion.  I don't disagree with it on principle but rather applaud the principle.  However, I don't think we can afford it. If the LibNats win government - can they claim a "mandate" to implement it ?

would it matter?  Abbott would win 60/40 and the current senate would still block any abbott policy.  The concept of mandate died in 1998 after the GST election and the blocking that came after.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

name one pm that didnt have a testy relationship with the premiers

exactly.  Premiers always complain about everything because their finances are nearly 90% related to federal funding.  Ive not seen any evidence that this scheme will require any state expenses and if there are they would be re-imbursed.  After all, the equity-for-all concept is one libs tend to practice while Labor throws money where votes are needed.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 5:52pm: If the LibNats win government - can they claim a "mandate" to implement it ? would it matter?  Abbott would win 60/40 and the current senate would still block any abbott policy.  The concept of mandate died in 1998 after the GST election and the blocking that came after.

The idea of an electoral mandate had been dead for a quarter of a century before the 1998 election.

Bam wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 10:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:06pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 5:52pm: If the LibNats win government - can they claim a "mandate" to implement it ? would it matter?  Abbott would win 60/40 and the current senate would still block any abbott policy.  The concept of mandate died in 1998 after the GST election and the blocking that came after. The idea of an electoral mandate had been dead for a quarter of a century before the 1998 election.

It is only dead if we allow it to be.  Why should governments NOT be permitted to implement their major elected-on policies by a senate that by virtue of nothing more than the delayed nature of its elections can do so?

You cannot complain about Abbott blocking Gillard legislation she didn't even mention at the election or had opposing positions on and then say that mandates are dead.  The Libs honoured the 2007 anti-workchoices mandate by voting FOR the fair work act.  It would appear that mandates are more the concept followed by the Libs than Labor.

What about Abbott blocking Rudds ETS after his own party took one to the same election Rudd did.

Abbott dug his own grave and if he doesn't get a senate majority he is screwed big time, and serves him right!

Abbott made his own bed longy. Payback is always a bitch

I think Abbott wants the States to continue paying PPL to public servants but at the rate of Abbott's scheme.....My guess is Barnett wants to dump the State scheme onto the Commonwealth!!!

>:( >:( >:(

aquascoot wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

name one pm that didnt have a testy relationship with the premiers

yes... they always have their hand out for money... they never want to give any back...

the states have bent the Labor government over the barrel lately because Gillard and Rudd have been so desperate to get policies through before the election...

just spray out the tax payers money like you'd spray a big fireman's hose...