Opposition Budget in Reply: Peter Dutton has no…

Solutions for Climate Australia Media Release National advocacy group Solutions for Climate Australia…

Understanding the risk

It's often claimed the major supermarkets would prefer to see tonnes of…

A Brutal Punishment: The Sentencing of David McBride

Sometimes, it’s best not to leave the issue of justice to the…

Climate pollution and petrol bills coming down as…

Climate Council Media Release AUSTRALIA IS OFF AND RACING on the road to…


It’s time we reckoned with what it means to become a corporatocracy.…

Plan B

By James Moore Every time there is a release of a New York…

Australian federal budget falls flat in tackling inequality:…

In response to the 2024 federal budget, Oxfam Australia Interim Director of…

Budget Futures in a Time of Global Economic…

By Denis Bright Jim Chalmer’s Budget received a good reception. Commentators identified with…


Tag Archives: PPL

The Coalition Plan for a Better Australia

The first thing we need to do is get rid of the toxic carbon tax. It is destroying the joint. After all, emissions went up. Ok, I know that greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced, or the equivalent of about 14.8 million tonnes, and that demand has dropped as businesses and individuals adopt energy efficiency methods, but emissions from coalmine expansion and new gas plants have been soaring. And that’s what we want! More coal and more gas to make our country better.

And as for renewable energy, competition like that is bad for the country. It puts up prices. I know normally one would consider competition a good thing but not in this case. Have you seen those wind farms? They are U.G.L.Y they ain’t got no alibi they ugly uh huh they ugly. I know there was some talk of 1 million solar roofs before the election. That information was purely a discussion paper that was inadvertently leaked by a junior staffer who has since been counselled.

And that mining tax has to go because it is stopping investment. It may not have raised much money but it has scared off mining companies who will take our resources offshore to develop more cheaply – I’m not sure how, but they will. Don’t you worry about THAT, you people.

It’s a well-known fact that people don’t appreciate something unless they have to pay for it. I don’t mean you people who are fraudulently claiming business usage on your cars – we know you love your BMWs. I mean those lollygagging sick people. We will introduce a luxury tax on doctor’s visits and medications so sick people will truly appreciate the help the doctors and chemists are giving them.

It is also obvious that we can no longer accommodate all those people who are claiming they are old because of some vague family connection in the past. Far too many people have been using their age to claim entitlements that the rest of us don’t receive. To stamp out this reverse discrimination we have changed the definition of old to “too old to work”. Rather than seeking handouts, we will liberate those who were previously known as old to seek work usually given to other age brackets or to retrain for a new career. Training fees will be deducted from their estate.

Our greatest priority is to defend our borders against everyone and everything – asylum seekers, sharks, coral – who knows what deadly menace is around the corner and under a tree. To that end we are amassing squadrons of attack fighter jets, packs of submarines, armadas of orange life rafts, and a whole fleet of fishermen with mates and eskies. They will complement our Navy who patrol our Northern Shores searching for boats that have stopped and our Airforce who patrol the Southern Oceans searching for the Mary Celeste. This will be given an unlimited budget that will go up by whatever the generals ask for each year.

We are conscripting our youth into a homeland defence force known as the Green Army which can be deployed to any mine that may be a possible target for whoever is invading – maybe the crown of thorn starfish who already knows that Greg Hunt means business!

To help the unemployed get jobs, we will make everyone part-time, pay them less, and make them move away from family who could provide accommodation and friends who could help with transport or share the cost of living. Those who choose to commute, we will make them truly appreciate the cost of petrol by increasing the fuel excise so we can build more roads. This will not apply to anyone making over $1 billion a year.

To show that we are all making sacrifices, rich women will only be given $1,923 a week to have babies. Corporate Australia will pay for this through a 1.5% levy on some businesses in conjunction with a 1.5% decrease in company tax for all businesses. That should work….I think.

Any shortfall between government revenue and the subsidies and tax breaks that we give to mining companies, banks, private health insurers, and Gina, will be made up equally by all those who earn over $80,000 who don’t have an accountant. Those of you who do have an accountant may continue negative gearing because you are the rock upon which this nation is built.

This is our vision, this is our mission…..

Vive les riches!

The Peter Principle

Tony-AbbottThe Peter Principle suggests that people will tend to be promoted until they reach their “position of incompetence”, and that is exactly what we are seeing with this Coalition government. They had six years in Opposition to develop their policies, and access to the Parliamentary Budgetary Office to cost them, but when it came to the crunch the cupboard was bare.

The assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion is often based on their performance in the current job. Tony Abbott has been described as a very good Opposition leader. Personally I can’t see it, but that’s because I think all members of Parliament have been elected to help run the country. Achieving anything was never on Abbott’s radar. His entire being was devoted to “attack dog” and truth and decency were no impediment. He wanted to win at any cost as Tony Windsor revealed. But what now?

Over six months in and it is patently obvious that the Coalition have no plan at all other than to “slowly and methodically” pay hundreds of millions of dollars to private consulting firms and mates to see if they can come up with a way to make the Coalition’s election promises feasible. We have well over fifty reviews and audits and white papers and green papers in progress. Any discussion of policy or direction turns into “the mess left by the previous government”. They fail to realise that they were elected to fix this perceived mess rather than waste time bemoaning it. You don’t employ a new CEO to sit there saying “wasn’t me, was the other guy”.

The Royal Commission into the home insulation programme is a blatant attempt to discredit the previous government. The money would be far better spent implementing the recommendations from the eight inquiries we have already had. The Royal Commission into unions is another blatant attempt to discredit all unions, silence the collective voice of the workers, and taint the Labor Party for their traditional association with the unions. There do seem to be some problems in the construction industry but this would be far better investigated by a police task force who can actually prosecute people. If I was giving evidence about intimidation by bikies I would rather talk discreetly to the cops than to a televised circus who has no power to lock anyone up.

In the ultimate display of NIMBY, the Coalition is claiming success in its promise to “stop the boats”. If the boats have stopped why are we paying the US $3 billion for unmanned drones and spending $7.5 million on orange disposable life rafts and $5.7 million on an intelligence gathering technology that aims to locate ”security threats” on the water before they reach Australian shores. Not to mention the $16.8 million cost of extending naval vessel, the Triton, for six months and the $25 million cost of increasing the contract for the armed patrol vessel, the Ocean Protector. All they have done is build a very expensive dam against the rising tide of refugees, thus inundating transit countries who are far less able to help these people than we are.

They remain committed to spend $22 billion on paid parental leave even though the productivity commission said replacement wage PPL was inequitable, very costly, and of little benefit. All expert advice is that childcare is far more important in improving female workforce participation.

In the face of concerted worldwide action on climate change and investment in renewable energy, they insist they will “axe the tax” and get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This has nothing to do with making your electricity bill cheaper. If they truly wanted to do that they could easily make power GST free just like fresh food and encourage competition through the renewable energy sector. This is once again just a blatant attempt to discredit the previous government by blaming everything that happens on the “carbon tax” which is in fact a temporary fixed price emission trading scheme if we want to be correct.

For a government who wants to cut red tape, Direct Action and PPL are going to be administrative nightmares. We already see Operation Sovereign Borders requiring “the co-operation of 15 departments” – how many public servants will these three policies alone occupy?

Rather than being flexible enough to react to circumstances, or adaptable to changing conditions, or willing to take expert advice, the Coalition have a script which they are determined to deliver regardless of the cost or what is happening in the rest of the world.

The author of the Peter Principle suggests that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.” Rather than seeking to promote a talented “super-competent” junior employee, Peter suggested that an incompetent manager may set them up to fail or dismiss them because they will likely “violate the first commandment of hierarchical life with incompetent leadership: [namely that] the hierarchy must be preserved”. We mustn’t have any of those pesky scientists or expert public servants or, God forbid, women, showing us up.

Peter goes on to say that “Staff who find themselves with what they consider to be incompetent superiors may try to “manage upward” and support or manipulate them to be more effective, or may simply devise ways to minimise the damage and influence they have on the organisation.” Peta Credlin is never more than a few feet from Tony. She sits at the table with world leaders carefully managing what her creation says and does.

A similar theory was proposed by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon series. In his 1996 book, The Dilbert Principle, Adams suggested that “the least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don’t want doing actual work.” We really need to find something to keep George Brandis occupied or he is just going to keep spending a fortune on trashy books to fill his gargantuan custom-made bookcases, and on “networking” at weddings. Other than approving raids and redefining human rights, George has spent a lot of time correcting grammar in preparation for ‘repeal day’ – the so-called bonfire of regulations.

The deregulation of financial advisers should give us all a clue about the mentality of this government. They have our money to invest but they refuse to be obligated to invest it in our best interest. To paraphrase Gough Whitlam…

Well may they say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the country (other than an election).

Since when did we become a greedy nation?

Watching QandA last night I was struck dumb when a young female member of the audience pounced on Bill Shorten for the government not matching the handout she could expect under Tony Abbott’s PPL scheme. It wasn’t so much the question she threw at Shorten that stunned me, but her attitude.

I cannot remember her question word-for-word, though I remember she introduced herself as a young, ambitious lady who would soon be entering the workforce and confidently embarking on a successful career. In her opinion, as a successful young lady, she feels she would deserve to be paid a bucket load of money to have a baby.

Is it just me, or is that attitude wrong?

Good luck to her in her career, which I hope is very rewarding. I also hope her success matches her enthusiasm. She might know that success in a career usually comes from putting in the hard yards. Do that, and the rewards will more than likely come. Nobody is going to hand success to her on a platter. Yet she wants the government, nay, taxpayers, to give her $75,000 for six months of baby time.

Why should she have the expectation that her pre-supposed success should be rewarded? Why should she have such a sense of outrageous entitlement? Or rather, why should she expect anything at all?

I don’t have issues with paid parental leave but I do have issues with people who expect the government to cater for their every whim. Women or anybody for that matter who is in need of government support should be able to receive it, but why should a successful person be entitled to receive more for something (that is basically a life choice) than a person who is unable to make that choice purely based on financial grounds? In essence, this young lady expects the government to give her a handout. A huge one.

Maybe I’m showing my age but I don’t recall these greedy attitudes from older generations. Since when have we become a country of people who want something for nothing and expect hard-working taxpayers to provide it for us.

This young lady made it clear – without saying so – that her vote would go to the party prepared to give her the most money to have a child. There was little-expressed concern that most of the taxpayers who foot the bill earn less in a year than she would pocket under Abbott’s PPL scheme (assuming, of course, that she is in a successful, high-paying job as she expects to be).

I don’t like Abbott’s scheme for a few of reasons. Firstly, I can’t see it as being viable (which I won’t go into as it is not the purpose of this post). Secondly, I find it discriminatory (again, I won’t expand on this). Thirdly, and most importantly, as shown on QandA last night it produces a sense of ‘unearned’ entitlement and greed. And sadly, at the expense of people who are more needy.

Someone is sure to enlighten me by announcing that her attitude is typical of today’s generation. If it is, then I was seriously unaware of it. If it is, then I find it extremely disappointing. If it is, do we really need to keep encouraging it?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

A Clarification – not a backdown on the PPL!

“Earlier this week, a Labor backbencher, Michelle Rowland, was denied a ‘pair’ in spite of having a sick child. We have in the studio, Mr War-on Inch explaining this decision. Good afternoon, Mr Inch”

“Good afternoon, I’d just like to point out that we have since given her the pair and now Ms Rowland is home where she should have been all along.”

“This is being used by the Labor Party to suggest that you’re out of touch when it comes to the needs of the working mother.”

“That’s just typical. Tony Abbott is introducing the Parental Leave (PPL) scheme to enable mothers to stay at home. And he has a wife and daughters, not to mention the fact that his mother was a woman. He certainly understands women far better than the PM.”

“So why didn’t you give her the pair earlier?”

“We didn’t know that her child was sick.”

“But she’s produced a letter where you talk of her child being unwell. before saying that the pair won’t be granted.”

“Yes, but she didn’t say ‘sick’. I mean, people in the workforce get sick leave, they don’t get unwell leave.”

“That seems to be splitting straws.”



“I think you’ll find the expression is ‘splitting hairs’. No-one says splitting straws.”

“But the point is surely that you should have given her the pair earlier in the week!”

“No the point is that she shouldn’t have waited until Thursday. She should have been home with her child and not even come to Parliament.”

“So you’d have given her a pair if she hadn’t turned up at all?”

“No, I’m just saying that it just shows what sort of parent she is. Leaving a sick child.”

“Surely she has an obligation to represent her electorate. I mean would you stay home if you had a sick child?”

“I’m not a mother!”

“That’s a matter of opinion …”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button