eBay

nero_bolt · ‎29-08-2014

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-28/labor-blocking-five-billion-of-own-savings-measures/5684750

Fact check: Labor blocking $5 billion of its own savings measures

The claim: Mathias Cormann says Labor is opposing $5 billion in savings that it initiated when it was in government.
The verdict: Labor is blocking three measures which would save the budget more than $5 billion and which it initiated when in government.

The bottom line

Senator Cormann says three measures originally proposed by Labor are now being blocked.

The Government's legislation to pursue changes to R&D concessions is identical to changes introduced in draft legislation by the ALP in 2013.

Its legislation to abandon tax cuts linked to the carbon tax mirrors Labor's 2011 law introducing those cuts, which Labor said in 2013 it intended to defer.

Savings proposed from changes to the higher education packagereflect those identified in Labor's last budget.

The Opposition says it refuses to support the R&D savings and the higher education changes because the resulting savings will not be used by the Coalition as Labor had originally intended. However, the Government's measures remain the same. Labor, in two Senate committee reports, admits as much.

Labor says the legislation reversing income tax cuts originally intended to offset the impact of the carbon tax is not the same as the Coalition's legislation, because Labor's deferral was always temporary, whereas the Coalition's legislation makes the reversal permanent. Given the Coalition has repealed the carbon tax, the carbon price will never reach $25.40 a tonne. So there is no reason to defer the tax cuts rather than abandon them.

The verdict

While Labor says it has good reason for blocking the legislation, each of the three areas had been identified by it as an appropriate way to find savings, regardless of how the savings would be applied.

In any event, Senator Cormann is not making a claim about why Labor is blocking legislative changes that it proposed first, only that it is.

The measures that Labor is opposing would save the budget more than $5 billion.

Senator Cormann is correct.

i-need-a-martini · ‎29-08-2014

Did you read the article nero?

Cause if you did it would explain why the cuts were not the same and why the Labor Party are now opposing them.

A good example is the higher education cut. The Gillard govt was making cuts to the university budget to fund primary eduaction. There was clear policy for both the cuts and the hand out. The Abbott govt is making same cuts to universities in order for those cuts to be invested elswhere with no policy formulations made about what is being funded.

All of the other "savings" the Liberals say were first announced but now being opposed by Labor are also clearly spelled out with reasons why.

You just have to read the article line by line and it is all there. Your verdict is simply not true and I assume your own opinion as the article actually contradicts you on this.

fourandsixpants · ‎29-08-2014

Three weeks later, Labor MP Tony Zappia told Parliament that there were "major differences" between the Labor and Coalition proposal to reduce R&D tax concessions which meant Labor would not support it.

"The proposition from the previous government was tied to a whole host of job-creating initiatives that would have been directly funded as a result of the savings made...This legislation does not do that.

It simply makes the cuts, and I assume the funds go into general revenue," he said.

After a Senate committee inquiry, a dissenting report by Labor senators published on March 17 said:

"It is true that this proposal stems from a measure put forward by the Labor Government in February 2013. That measure, however, must be understood in context. It was not an isolated savings measure, but the means of funding an ambitious package focussed on innovation policy, A Plan for Australian Jobs, centred on strategic industry-led Innovation Partnerships.

These Partnerships would have the scale to attract major global investments in Australian firms and research institutions. They were, in other words, a new means to the same end: working with business to build jobs for Australians.
That rationale is gone.

The Abbott Government has made no commitment to the job-building measures the previous Labor Government tied to the changes to the R&D Tax Incentive.

Nor has it earmarked the savings from this measure for the vital task of lifting R&D investment.

It is simply ripping support from innovators in business."

nero_bolt · ‎29-08-2014

@i-need-a-martini wrote:
. Your verdict is simply not true and I assume your own opinion as the article actually contradicts you on this.

Not my verdict, its Fact Checks verdict,,,,, Fact Check being the darling of the left and funded by Julia and an ABC section... I suggest to you that you email them and tell them that their verdict is incorrect or leave a comment on the stories page that they are incorrect

The verdict

While Labor says it has good reason for blocking the legislation, each of the three areas had been identified by it as an appropriate way to find savings, regardless of how the savings would be applied.

In any event, Senator Cormann is not making a claim about why Labor is blocking legislative changes that it proposed first, only that it is.

The measures that Labor is opposing would save the budget more than $5 billion.

Senator Cormann is correct.

boris1gary · ‎29-08-2014

Fact check - LNP Budget stinks and is going nowhere.

i-need-a-martini · ‎29-08-2014

The "verdict" is in the article if you care to read it.

However I will say it as simply as I possibly can for one of the claims - uni cuts.

Labor wants to cut 2.8bill to universities to redirect the funding to primary education. At the same time, they will introduce a range of measure to make university more accessible. Students are financially better off.

Liberal wants to cut 2.8billion to university. No other policies except deregulation which makes it financially harder for university students. Students will be financially slaughtered.

Labor says it will only agree to the cuts if the money is redirected to primary schools and the spending is directed and if the nonsense bill to deregulate the universities is dropped.

Liberal disagree and cry foul "Oh look at how hypocritcal Labor are! They were the ones that were going to cut universities in the first place so they HAVE to allow this budget!!" They conveniently forget to mention that it isn't as black and white as that and there is a little more thought that goes into creating a budget.

Umm, hello?

nero_bolt · ‎29-08-2014

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Umm, hello?

UUmmmmm hello... take it up with Fact Check... you can tell them how wrong that they are by clicking on my link in the OP

i-need-a-martini · ‎29-08-2014

@nero_wulf wrote:
@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Umm, hello?
UUmmmmm hello... take it up with Fact Check... you can tell them how wrong that they are by clicking on my link in the OP

I am not suggesting they are wrong at face value.

Labor IS opposing $5bill in the areas that they initially would have cut the $5bill from.

But what you are failing to comprehend is that they are not opposing the cuts. They are opposing the policies (or lack therof) accompanying those cuts.

Read the article in your link nero.

fourandsixpants · ‎29-08-2014

such a profound and useful phrase is ...." failing to comprehend".....

The article being discussed is very 'strange' - it has been written to 'appear' one way but yes, ineeda, I agree with you it does quite clearly outline the WHY ALP have refused to support LNP's twisted proposed savings legislation.....because they want to cut and slash and make 'savings' without DOING anything constructive like diverting the funds to make IMPROVEMENTS and promote GROWTH etc.

Not hard to understand if you carefully read the article through line by line and para by para.

cherry*135 · ‎29-08-2014

A LNP supporter quoting the 'biased' ABC. What next?