Is this the funniest gaffe so far from the Abott govmint?

[mickyb]

And they must be fools if they don't agree with you harpo , why don't you just put the world on ignore . Then you can spend hour after hour agreeing with yourself untainted by ignorance .

[Xenon4017]

Its the thin end of the wedge though once the excess is in force it will then be increased year in year out, just like in the UK. But the real argument is Joe Hockey saying poor people don't drive as much. Such a sweeping generalization. Ridiculous.

 

There has always been duty on fuel. The difference is that 11 years ago it was frozen, at which point it represented 40% of the pump price. Since fuel has gone up in the meantime, the duty now only represents about 25% of the pump price. This is why Australia has relatively cheap fuel, for a country that has no oil. Hockey wants to reinstate the index linking of the duty so that it will rise with fuel price/inflation and so remain a constant proportion of the pump price. Australia is the exception to the rule in that they don't currently do this, although they used to. In the UK, we get very used to hearing the Tuesday evening news where they tell us that fuel has gone up by " 2p a litre starting at midnight".

 

What Hockey says about the relative kms travelled by poor vs rich people is true. It is a generalization, based on statistics, but that's all he has to work with. That's all any treasurer can work with. The independently gathered stats.

 

It's a generalization to say that smoking predicates lung cancer. Not everyone who smokes gets it, and not all lung cancer sufferers are smokers. But would you seriously argue that smoking isn't bad for your health. And if the data showed that poor people smoke more cigarettes per head than rich people, can't a politician highlight this? (I've not looked if this is true, it's just an example of an uncomfortable statistic.)

[Xenon4017]

so is this all political padding for a rise in fuel prices?

seems strange to jack up fuel prices for the poor and middle earners (those who don't claim fuel back on their tax) whilst still paying the mines fuel bills for all their trucks etc.

it's not like they can't pay?

 

I guess the argument is that the fuel duty is earmarked for road building projects. If you don't use the diesel on the (publicly funded) road then why pay the duty. Like using it in a tractor on a farm or in a donkey engine for a water pump.

 

What Hockey has done is remove the subsidy for the production of ethanol which goes into E10. Surprisingly, this ethanol is made by one company who are a sponsor of the current govt. Whatever gentlemens agreement you may think they might have had before the election has clearly disappeared into the ether, together with their main product.

[Xenon4017]

so is this all political padding for a rise in fuel prices?

seems strange to jack up fuel prices for the poor and middle earners (those who don't claim fuel back on their tax)

 

It's not "political padding" at all. He just wants to reinstate the same system that most of the rest of the world uses, and that Australia used to use until 11 years ago. The index linking of duty.

 

It doesn't matter if you claim the tax back on fuel or not; that's the great thing about direct taxation. The revenue will be collected at point of sale. Unavoidably.

 

The only reason that this has become a story is that so many people want to beat up Joe Hockey, but they can't summon the wit to criticize his ideas, so they play the man not the ball. And for the media, this is far more entertaining than discussing the underlying issues.

[Harpodom]

And they must be fools if they don't agree with you harpo , why don't you just put the world on ignore . Then you can spend hour after hour agreeing with yourself untainted by ignorance .

 

ad hominem. Ouch

[Harpodom]

So Xenon, how do you think the budget is going so far?

 

Is it fair? Has is been sold well? Will it need to be re done from scratch?

 

It's not "political padding" at all. He just wants to reinstate the same system that most of the rest of the world uses, and that Australia used to use until 11 years ago. The index linking of duty.

 

It doesn't matter if you claim the tax back on fuel or not; that's the great thing about direct taxation. The revenue will be collected at point of sale. Unavoidably.

 

The only reason that this has become a story is that so many people want to beat up Joe Hockey, but they can't summon the wit to criticize his ideas, so they play the man not the ball. And for the media, this is far more entertaining than discussing the underlying issues.

[MARYROSE02]

What's even stranger is that there are so many fools who defend a government which treats them with such obvious contempt.

 

One ill-advized comment from Joe Hockey means total contempt from the Govt? Give over! I am cynical as anybody about MP's, but one comment like that is not enough to make me change sides.

 

But if you were to make a comment like 'No Government I lead will ever introduce a Carbon Tax' before an election, and then promptly do just that. Well, I would certainly not vote for them at the next election.

 

Anyway, I'd rather Joe Hockey speaks his mind, than listen to the mealy mouthed hypocrisy from the likes of Doug Cameron and anybody in The Greens.

[Guest]

But if you were to make a comment like 'No Government I lead will ever introduce a Carbon Tax' before an election, and then promptly do just that. Well, I would certainly not vote for them at the next election.

 

How about if they promised: no cuts to the ABC, no increases to the pension age, no cuts to pensions, no increases to education costs, transparency, responsibility, accountability and of course 'NO BROKEN PROMISES'. Would you vote for those guys again?

[MicheleW]

How about if they promised: no cuts to the ABC, no increases to the pension age, no cuts to pensions, no increases to education costs, transparency, responsibility, accountability and of course 'NO BROKEN PROMISES'. Would you vote for those guys again?

 

That is a totally different thing! :wink:

 

And actually the quote was: “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.” For some convenient reason people forget the second part of the quote.

[Xenon4017]

So Xenon, how do you think the budget is going so far?

 

Is it fair? Has is been sold well? Will it need to be re done from scratch?

 

It hasn't been passed yet. So it's hard to determine if it's raised the desired revenue without adverse unintended consequence. Has it been "sold well"? You mean "have they retailed their policy"? Who cares?

 

Reinstating indexed fuel duty is probably the least controversial budgetary change he could have proposed. And people make such a song and dance not because it's unfair, but because they've been led to believe that you can get something for nothing. "I'm happy to pay an extra dollar a week to get a new hospital". Well, a dollar a week is 52 dollars per year. That'll buy about 7 minutes attention in the typical A and E department.

 

If people are getting excited about raising the price of what is essentially a pollutant, I can't wait to see the reaction when it comes to funding the NDIS.

 

Ultimately I think the budget will get through without substantial change. The 7$ doctors payment might be scaled back as a symbolic gesture. At the end of the day, the govt was elected on a manifesto of being prudent. If they held an election tomorrow, I can't see the ALP getting a majority, although they might not lose by such a record-breaking margin. The media can rant and rave all they want (as they did before the election), but at the end of the day when it comes time to putting an X in the box, people make a reasoned choice. I know you don't like the result; anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, or a racist, or a stooge. But the result stands.

[Harpodom]

One ill-advized comment from Joe Hockey means total contempt from the Govt? Give over! I am cynical as anybody about MP's, but one comment like that is not enough to make me change sides.

 

But if you were to make a comment like 'No Government I lead will ever introduce a Carbon Tax' before an election, and then promptly do just that. Well, I would certainly not vote for them at the next election.

 

Anyway, I'd rather Joe Hockey speaks his mind, than listen to the mealy mouthed hypocrisy from the likes of Doug Cameron and anybody in The Greens.

 

How about a government that proposes paying GPs an incentive to charge a $7 co-payment to pensioners, concession card holders and under 16s, *specifically*?

 

No incentive to charge a $7 co-payment for other groups. No, just the ones it would hurt most.

 

The absolute opposite of the current system which incentivises GPs to bulk bill pensioners, concession card holders and under 16s.

 

Try polishing that turd and tell me that's not contempt.

[Sammy1]

What on earth is wrong with the statement "poor people don't drive cars as much as rich people"?

 

My family were quite poor, my parents never had a car. We used public transport. I couldn't afford driving lessons when I was of age, whereas all my friends had parents pay for theirs and were driving years before me. I didn't pass my test and get my car until I had some income and a bit of savings behind me. Certainly is a very strong link between financial status and car driving as far as I am concerned. I still would not drive to work because of parking costs, road tolls etc., I get the bus. To me it seems entirely sensible that poor people do not drive cars as much as rich people.

 

As for global cooling, pretty indifferent to it to be honest. The earth does go through periods of global warming and global cooling, always has and always will.

 

Public transport in Oz is crap and the distances are often huge. Poor people drive- a lot.

[fish.01]

The way Hockey sold the co-payment as only a insignificant $7 was totally disingenuous. I think some of his previous utterances have affected the way people reacted to his "poorest people" comment whether fair or not. We now know that the intention was:

 

- it will be $7 each time...so if your child breaks their arm like happened to my colleague last month the $7 would have been paid for: initial GP visit $7, again for X-ray $7, again for GP looking at X-ray $7, again for followup Xray $7, again for GP examine X-ray $7, again for final Xray $7, again for GP examination $7. If you are not bulk billed at the moment it will be an extra $5 rather than $7.

 

- many GP's are saying their systems will not have the ability to just charge their existing bulk billed patients the new charge so they will have to charge them the whole approx $70 amount and then the patient will claim back....potentially not getting the money back to the following week after a weekend. Many patients are choosing between food for the kids for the weekend and a GP visit...some will not have the upfront money.

 

- bulk billing xray/ultrasound places are saying they will have to charge up front and then claim back from govt. So initial outlay may be up to $1000 for a speciality X-ray/ultrasound....or a few hundred up front for standard service. Some people just do not have this money.

 

"Therefore, under Medicare rules, when a patient is not bulk billed they must be charged the full fee upfront and then claim a rebate back from Medicare.

Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association CEO Pattie Beerens says this means general patients should have to pay $90 upfront for an x-ray, $380 for a CAT scan, up to $160 for a mammogram and up to $190 for an ultrasound." See: http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/hidden-medicare-changes-in-federal-budget-medical-scans-could-cost-you-up-to-1000/story-fn84fgcm-1226952246802

 

 

- On top of the $7 fee the 10% bulk billing incentive paid towards a scan has been cut for general patients. So out of pocket costs for a previously bulk billed scan may now cost $160 + the $5 fee for non concessional patients. See above link for more.

 

- non GP medicare benefits schedule will be frozen for 2 years.

 

- medicare safety net will have new caps to limit the help.

 

- free public hospitals will now be able to charge fees for seeing outpatients.

 

- The co-payment for each medicine is going up $5 at the same time as well.

 

- The PBS safety net for medicines is increasing as well. It will cost an extra $145.30 before a non concession card holder reaches the PBS safety net and an extra $61.80 for a concessional card holder. The general PBS safety limit will rise 10% above inflation for 3 years. The concessional limit will rise 2 more scripts every year.

 

- The income limit thresholds for private health insurance rebates and medicare levy surcharge will not be indexed for 3 years.

 

- Agreed forward funding for public hospitals has been cut so states will now have to raise taxes to match expected funding.

 

 

$7 indeed.

 

I think his quotes in this article show just how he is driven by internet argument style ideology and not the real world. All poor people are obviously wasters drinking beer, smoking and unemployed by choice.

 

“I'd say to you, Chris, one of the things that quite astounds me is some people are screaming about a $7 co-payment,” Mr Hockey said.

“One packet of cigarettes costs $22. That gives you three visits to the doctor. You can spend just over $3 on a middy of beer, so that's two middies of beer to go to the doctor.

“And is a parent really going to deny their sick child a visit to the doctor which would be the equivalent payment of a couple of beers or one-third of a packet of cigarettes?”

(A middy – for those unfamiliar with NSW drinking habits – is a 285-millilitre glass of beer. In Darwin you’d call it a handle; a pot in Melbourne. And to be strictly accurate, you'd have to go back to 2006 to find a middy that is cheaper, when it cost $2.87. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data, from 2011, shows the average price of a middy is $3.74.)

Uhlmann, an experienced interrogator, pressed on. What if you’re 27 years old, unemployed and no longer have access to welfare benefits, he asked. Would a visit to the doctor - like a beer or cigarettes - become a luxury?

“Well, I would expect to be in a job,” Mr Hockey shot back. “That'd be the starting point, you'd be in a job. And we need you to work.”

In later interviews, Mr Hockey ditched the middy for a macchiato.

"[T]he fundamental point is: are people in a position now where they're not prepared to give up a couple of cups of coffee or something else in their lives in order to take a sick child to the doctor?" he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/less-than-two-middies-joe-hockey-defends-7-gp-fee-20140515-zrdb6.html#ixzz3AWY84xVG

 

 

Just remember those who unemployed and under 30 will get no unemployment benefits in his budget for 6months, then will for 6 months, then nothing again for 6 months, repeating every 6 months...health payments may seem a big deal to them....

[Pumpkin]

Public transport in Oz is crap and the distances are often huge. Poor people drive- a lot.

 

 

Sigh. Yes I know Australia is very big. But it does not mean that the average journey made by the average person in Australia is big, in fact I find that people are really being a little bit illogical about this. The majority of us live around the edges of the country in the metropolitan areas, we don't all live in the outback or on farms or anything similar.

 

The people I see on my buses, are most definitely not from the higher social classes, they are typically from the lower ones. The people I know that are monied would not dream of getting public transport, they drive everywhere. Loads of people say that they would not live where I live because of the dreadful public transport, I honestly do not know what they are on about. Buses every ten to fifteen minutes in the morning and evening and every half an hour during he day, just use the timetable and plan, that is all it needs. I guess where you are used to not having a car, you just learn to plan better, it is just something you do without thinking to be honest.

[Skani]

Public transport in Oz is crap and the distances are often huge. Poor people drive- a lot.

 

Yes, the situation is quite different to the UK experience presumably quoted by Pumpkin.

 

The reality in today's Australia is that the poor are forced to live on the fringes of cities or in semi rural areas because they can't afford the housing prices closer to the CBD.

And Australia is particularly deficient in public transport to these areas..in fact, they are often completely non existent. So, unless they live a completely self sufficient lifestyle, a car is an absolute necessity.

[Skani]

Buses every ten to fifteen minutes in the morning and evening and every half an hour during he day,

 

Maybe where you live. But for many, if there is any bus at all, it may be one in the morning and one return in the evening. That's fine if it you are employed with a standard 9 - 5 working day. But for people who work shift work, who need to do shopping, attend appointments, take children to activities etc. such a timetable is useless.

[amibovered]

So for my friend who lives in Jugiong NSW, a small village of about 250 people, getting sick would become much more expensive, 60km round trip to the doctors at Gundagai, has to be by car because there is no public transport at all, extra $7 to see the doctor and another $5 on any medication, ah well peanuts really, the extra cost wouldn't even cover the cost of one of the treasurers cigars!!

[Skani]

One ill-advized comment from Joe Hockey means total contempt from the Govt? Give over!

 

The tragedy is that it isn't one ill advised comment...it's a whole succession of them.

 

Anyway, I'd rather Joe Hockey speaks his mind, than listen to the mealy mouthed hypocrisy from the likes of Doug Cameron and anybody in The Greens

 

Which is rather ironic given that they would have a lot more interest in the welfare of you and your demographic than Hockey could ever muster.

[Pumpkin]

Yes, the situation is quite different to the UK experience presumably quoted by Pumpkin.

 

The reality in today's Australia is that the poor are forced to live on the fringes of cities or in semi rural areas because they can't afford the housing prices closer to the CBD.

And Australia is particularly deficient in public transport to these areas..in fact, they are often completely non existent. So, unless they live a completely self sufficient lifestyle, a car is an absolute necessity.

 

Yes comments about myself growing up were about the UK. But I think I have also commented on the fact that Australians do not all live in the outback, most of us live in metro areas and I really cannot keep repeating myself because of selective reading. My bus service in the UK was much worse than here, about one bus an hour and my parents had four children, couldn't afford a car, but managed, because they planned transport and chose local activities that they could get us to. That is what poor people do.

 

"Where I live?" You mean greater Sydney like another 3 million people? And in a metro area like the other >90% of the population? If it makes you happy, I will concede that this could be tough on the miniscule number of people living in remote Australia.

 

And loads of people complain about public transport where I live actually. People at work are horrified that I get the bus to work from where I live and I have seen loads on PIO say they would never live in the area. They sound a bit like you to be honest. Total horror about having to observe a bus timetable, plan or wait for a bus. It really is not the end of the world and if you ever get onto a bus, you genuinely would find lots doing it, some of them even have shopping bags.

[mickyb]

ad hominem. Ouch

Quid pro quo , Latin allways works so well to suppress the minions and elude an air of superiority over the fools who disagree. Unless you helped your 12 year old to Latin homework .

[MARYROSE02]

The tragedy is that it isn't one ill advised comment...it's a whole succession of them.

 

 

 

Which is rather ironic given that they would have a lot more interest in the welfare of you and your demographic than Hockey could ever muster.

 

What? Spending a fortune combatting global warming, and calling for an open door to all who want to come here? No thanks!

 

And tell me a government that does not stuff up with a few gaffes?

 

As I have already mentioned, I'm more interested in what Tony Abbott has been doing to help our victims of the MAS disaster and to combat terrorism, than worrying about a few gaffes.

[Skani]

They sound a bit like you to be honest. Total horror about having to observe a bus timetable, plan or wait for a bus. It really is not the end of the world and if you ever get onto a bus, you genuinely would find lots doing it, some of them even have shopping bags.

 

No need to teach me how to suck eggs and use public transport. I lived and worked for years in Sydney and Adelaide....had no car in either and used public transport exclusively. Getting to work for me in Sydney involved a bus, a ferry and a train.

 

But I am not talking about concentrated urban areas with reasonable transport infrastructure. Nor am I talking about remote areas of Australia either.

 

I don't know how familiar you are with Australia outside metropolitan Sydney. However, there are many outer areas of cities and regional communities - home to those who can't afford to live anywhere else - which do not have a public transport infrastructure at all ...or one which is simply impossible for families needing multiple trips to multiple locations at varying times of the day or night.

 

They don't have the choice of "local activities" as your family did in the UK because the urban fringe sprawl of so many Australian towns/ cities is notoriously poor in infrastructure and facilities. It's the result of short sighted planning...but that's what they have to live with.

[Harpodom]

Meanwhile Tomny Abot is playing 'gaffe catchup'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/tony-abbott-blasted-ludicrous-intervention-scottish-referendum?CMP=ema_632

 

[h=1]Tony Abbott blasted for 'ludicrous' intervention in Scottish referendum[/h]

[WeegieDave]

Meanwhile Tomny Abot is playing 'gaffe catchup'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/tony-abbott-blasted-ludicrous-intervention-scottish-referendum?CMP=ema_632

 

Tony Abbott blasted for 'ludicrous' intervention in Scottish referendum

 

 

 

He will get slaughtered in Scotland for such a ridiculous statement.. He really needs to think before he speaks! lol

[Harpodom]

He will get slaughtered in Scotland for such a ridiculous statement.. He really needs to think before he speaks! lol

 

"Tony Abbott has a reputation for gaffes, but his bewildering comments have all the hallmarks of one of the Westminster government’s international briefings against Scotland"

 

Alex Salmond's spokesman sounds more statesmanlike than the PM of Australia!