Totoo

Rating: 7.0/10

Mag-ulat ng Isyu
Coalition
C0507

Ang Claim

“Nabigo sa pangakong pang-eleksyon na magtatag ng bagong programa para sa paid parental leave.”
Ekonomiya
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis

Orihinal na Pinagmulan

✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON

**TRUE** - Nabigo ang pamahalaang Coalition sa ilalim ni Tony Abbott sa pangakong pang-eleksyon tungkol sa kanilang paid parental leave (PPL) scheme.
**TRUE** - The Coalition government led by Tony Abbott did break an election promise regarding its signature paid parental leave scheme.
 Noong 2013 federal election campaign, inihayag ni Tony Abbott ang isang malaking paid parental leave scheme bilang flagship policy.
During the 2013 federal election campaign, Tony Abbott announced a generous paid parental leave (PPL) scheme as a flagship policy.
 Ang scheme ay nangako ng 26 na linggo ng paid leave sa full replacement wage ng ina (may cap na $150,000 na taunang suweldo), kasama ang superannuation contributions [1].
The scheme promised 26 weeks of paid leave at the mother's full replacement wage (capped at an annual salary of $150,000), plus superannuation contributions [1].
 Ito ay inihain bilang malaking pagpapabuti sa kasalukuyang Labor scheme at malakas na ipinromote noong kampanya.
This was presented as a significant improvement over the existing Labor scheme and was heavily promoted during the campaign.
 Noong Pebrero 2, 2015, sa National Press Club, pormal na inihayag ni Prime Minister Tony Abbott na ang patakarang ito ay inabandona [1].
On 2 February 2015, at the National Press Club, Prime Minister Tony Abbott formally announced that the policy was being abandoned [1].
 Sinabi ni Abbott na ang scheme ay "shelved" at inilarawan ito bilang "captain's call" na ipinagpatuloy niya sa kabila ng internal na pagtutol sa partido.
Abbott stated the scheme would be "shelved" and described it as a "captain's call" that he had persisted with despite internal party opposition.
 Ang desisyon ay dumating sa gitna ng lumalalang budget pressures at kawalan ng suporta sa Senado para sa levy sa malalaking kumpanya.
The decision came amid mounting budget pressures and the government's inability to gain Senate support for the associated levy on large companies.

Nawawalang Konteksto

Ang claim, bagama't tama sa katotohanan, ay kulang sa mahalagang konteksto na tumutulong ipaliwanag kung bakit nabigo ang pangako: **Budget constraints at fiscal reality:** Nang maupo ang Coalition noong Setyembre 2013, ang pamahalaan ay nakaharap sa lumalalang budget position.
The claim, while factually accurate, lacks important context that helps explain why the promise was broken: **Budget constraints and fiscal reality:** When the Coalition took office in September 2013, the government faced a deteriorating budget position.
 Ang paid parental leave scheme, na may tinatayang gastos na humigit-kumulang $5.5 bilyon taun-taon, ay naging mahirap na ipaliwanag sa isang kapaligiran ng fiscal consolidation [2]. **Internal party opposition:** Ang scheme ay nakaranas ng malaking oposisyon mula sa loob mismo ng Coalition, kabilang sina Treasurer Joe Hockey at iba pang senior ministers na nakikita ito bilang fiscally irresponsible at poorly targeted.
The paid parental leave scheme, with an estimated cost of approximately $5.5 billion annually, became increasingly difficult to justify in an environment of fiscal consolidation [2]. **Internal party opposition:** The scheme faced significant opposition from within the Coalition itself, including from Treasurer Joe Hockey and other senior ministers who viewed it as fiscally irresponsible and poorly targeted.
 Inamin ni Abbott ang internal na pagtutol na ito nang inihayag niya ang pag-abandona [1]. **Senate arithmetic:** Kulang ang pamahalaan sa mga numero sa Senado para ipasa ang kinakailangang batas upang pondohan ang scheme sa pamamagitan ng inihinulang 1.5% levy sa mga kumpanya na may taxable income na higit sa $5 milyon [3]. **Signature policy reversal:** Hindi ito isang maliit na patakaran kundi isang signature promise na pinagmalaki ni Abbott bilang pagkakaiba mula sa Labor, kaya ang pag-abandona nito ay may malaking kahalagahan sa pulitika.
Abbott acknowledged this internal resistance when announcing its abandonment [1]. **Senate arithmetic:** The government lacked the Senate numbers to pass the necessary legislation to fund the scheme via the proposed 1.5% levy on companies with taxable incomes over $5 million [3]. **Signature policy reversal:** This was not a minor policy but a signature promise that Abbott had championed as a differentiator from Labor, making its abandonment politically significant.

Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan

Ang orihinal na source na ibinigay ay **ABC News** (abc.net.au) [1], na ang national public broadcaster ng Australia at pangkalahatang itinuturing na credible, mainstream news source na may mga nakatatag na editorial standards.
The original source provided is **ABC News** (abc.net.au) [1], which is Australia's national public broadcaster and is generally considered a credible, mainstream news source with established editorial standards.
 Ang ABC News ay walang nakasaad na partisan alignment at funded nang independent sa pamahalaan sa pamamagitan ng triennial appropriations.
ABC News has no stated partisan alignment and is funded independently of government through triennial appropriations.
 Bagama't pangkalahatang reliable, ang ABC ay nakaranas ng puna mula sa parehong pangunahing partido sa iba't ibang panahon, na nagmumungkahing ito ay nag-ooperate sa may kaugnayang independence.
While generally reliable, the ABC has faced criticism from both major parties at different times, which suggests it operates with relative independence.
 Para sa partikular na claim na ito tungkol sa policy announcement, ang report ng ABC mula sa aktwal na press conference ay nagbibigay ng direkta, firsthand coverage.
For this particular claim about a policy announcement, the ABC's report from the actual press conference provides direct, firsthand coverage.
⚖️

Paghahambing sa Labor

**Nagawa ba ng Labor ang katulad na bagay?** Inilunsad ng Labor ang unang national paid parental leave scheme sa Australia noong 2011 sa ilalim ng Gillard government, na nagsimula noong 2011 [4].
**Did Labor do something similar?** Labor introduced Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme in 2011 under the Gillard government, which began operations in 2011 [4].
 Gayunpaman, ang Labor scheme ay mas kaunting generous: - **Labor scheme:** 18 na linggo sa national minimum wage (humigit-kumulang $740 bawat linggo noong 2015) - **Abbott promised scheme:** 26 na linggo sa full replacement wage (may cap na $150,000 suweldo) Hindi nabigo ang Labor sa pangako tungkol sa paid parental leave sa parehong paraan, dahil naipatupad nila ang kanilang mas modest na scheme.
However, Labor's scheme was significantly less generous: - **Labor scheme:** 18 weeks at the national minimum wage (approximately $740 per week in 2015) - **Abbott promised scheme:** 26 weeks at full replacement wage (capped at $150,000 salary) Labor did not break a promise on paid parental leave in the same way, as they delivered their more modest scheme.
 Gayunpaman, nabigo ang Labor sa mga malaking pangakong pang-eleksyon sa ibang larangan, partikular na: - Ang carbon pricing backflip ng Gillard government ("There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead") [5] - Ang L-A-W tax cuts promise ng Keating government na hindi naipatupad [6] Ang pangunahing pagkakaiba ay ang paid parental leave ni Abbott ay isang signature, heavily-promoted policy na inabandona nang tahasan, samantalang ang Labor scheme ay naipatupad (bagama't sa mas limitadong anyo kaysa sa ipinangako ni Abbott).
However, Labor has broken significant election promises in other areas, most notably: - The Gillard government's carbon pricing backflip ("There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead") [5] - The Keating government's L-A-W tax cuts promise that were not delivered [6] The key difference is that Abbott's paid parental leave was a signature, heavily-promoted policy that was explicitly abandoned, whereas Labor's scheme was delivered (albeit in a more limited form than Abbott had promised).
🌐

Balanseng Pananaw

Bagama't tama ang claim na nabigo ang pangako, ang buong kwento ay may mga lehitimong kontekstwal na salik: **Government justification:** Binanggit ng Abbott government ang pagbabagong fiscal circumstances at pangangailangan para sa budget repair bilang pangunahing dahilan sa pag-shelve ng scheme.
While the claim is factually correct that the promise was broken, the full story includes legitimate contextual factors: **Government justification:** The Abbott government cited changed fiscal circumstances and the need for budget repair as the primary reasons for shelving the scheme.
 Nakaharap ang pamahalaan sa inaasahang budget deficit na mas malaki kaysa sa inaasahan nang ipangako ang scheme [2]. **Policy merits debated:** Ang ipinanukalang scheme ay kinutya ng mga economist at policy experts bilang mahal at poorly targeted, na nagbibigay ng disproportionate benefits sa mga higher-income earner.
The government faced a projected budget deficit that was larger than anticipated when the promise was made [2]. **Policy merits debated:** The proposed scheme had been criticized by economists and policy experts as expensive and poorly targeted, providing disproportionate benefits to higher-income earners.
 Ang Australia Institute at iba pang policy organizations ay nagduda kung ang scheme ay nagrerepresenta ng value for money [7]. **Political cost:** Ang pag-abandona sa pangakong ito ay mapaminsala sa pulitika para kay Abbott, partikular sa mga women voters, at naging kontribusyon sa pagtingin sa pamahalaan bilang hindi mapagkakatiwalaan.
The Australia Institute and other policy organizations had questioned whether the scheme represented value for money [7]. **Political cost:** Breaking this promise was politically damaging for Abbott, particularly among women voters, and contributed to perceptions of the government as untrustworthy.
 Ang "captain's call" framing ay nagpapatibay sa mga alalahanin tungkol sa leadership style ni Abbott. **Labor's alternative:** Pinanatili ng pamahalaan ang kasalukuyang, mas modest na paid parental leave scheme ng Labor, ibig sabihin ang mga magulang ay hindi naiwan nang walang anumang suporta - hindi lang nila natanggap ang mas generous na Coalition alternative na ipinangako. **Comparative context:** Bagama't ang mga nabigong pangako ay mapaminsala sa kredibilidad ng anumang pamahalaan, ang partikular na pagbabaliktad na ito ay maaaring tingnan bilang tugon sa fiscal reality sa halip na pulitikal na pagkakataon lamang.
The "captain's call" framing reinforced concerns about Abbott's leadership style. **Labor's alternative:** The government retained Labor's existing, more modest paid parental leave scheme, meaning parents were not left without any support - they simply did not receive the more generous Coalition alternative that had been promised. **Comparative context:** While broken promises are damaging to any government's credibility, this particular reversal can be viewed as a response to fiscal reality rather than mere political expediency.
 Nakaharap ang pamahalaan sa lehitimong budget pressures na nagpahirap na ipaliwanag ang mahal na scheme.
The government faced genuine budget pressures that made the expensive scheme difficult to justify.

TOTOO

7.0

sa 10

Nabigo ang pamahalaang Coalition sa isang malinaw na pangakong pang-eleksyon na magtatag ng mas malaking paid parental leave scheme.
The Coalition government did break an explicit election promise to introduce a more generous paid parental leave scheme.
 Inihayag ni Tony Abbott noong Pebrero 2015 na ang patakaran ay inabandona, humigit-kumulang 18 buwan matapos maupo sa opisina.
Tony Abbott announced the policy would be abandoned in February 2015, approximately 18 months after taking office.
 Ito ay malinaw at walang pag-aalinlangang pagbabaliktad sa isang malaking kampanyang pangako.
This was a clear, unambiguous reversal of a major campaign commitment.

📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (7)

  1. 1
    Tony Abbott shelves paid parental leave scheme, describes policy as a 'captain's call'

    Tony Abbott shelves paid parental leave scheme, describes policy as a 'captain's call'

    Coalition MPs sound out frontbenchers Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull as potential replacements for the PM, as Tony Abbott prepares to dump his paid parental leave scheme in a key speech.

    Abc Net
  2. 2
    archive.budget.gov.au

    2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook

    Archive Budget Gov

    Original link no longer available
  3. 3
    smh.com.au

    Coalition concedes defeat on paid parental leave levy

    Smh Com

    Original link no longer available
  4. 4
    dss.gov.au

    Paid Parental Leave scheme - Department of Social Services

    Dss Gov

  5. 5
    Julia Gillard's carbon tax promise

    Julia Gillard's carbon tax promise

    embedded pic According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a "gaffe" is a "social or diplomatic blunder, a noticeable mistake" synonymous with a "faux pas, impropriety, indiscretion or a solecism". Every presidential election campaign has its fair share of them, yet this year the number of gaffes - or at least the number being widely reported - seems to have been taken to a whole new level. And contrary to the strict definition, a gaffe no longer needs to be a mistake per se, rather just a poor choice of words which taken out of context can be used against the candidate. That being said, we have seen some doozies. The once-promising presidential candidacy of the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, was largely brought down by a series of gaffes, starting with the name of his family hunting camp - Niggerhead - and culminating in the "oops" moment in a debate last November when he forgot the third government agency he planned to scrap. Another one-time frontrunner, congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, also gained a gaffe-prone reputation last year, claiming the American Revolution began in New Hampshire, rather than the actual location of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. Ms Bachmann also claimed the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation, and that she was born in the same small Iowa town as movie star John Wayne - when in fact she was born in the same small Iowa town where serial killer John Wayne Gacy grew up. Newt Gingrich may not have technically gaffed but certainly provoked guffaws when he told voters in Florida he'd make the Moon America's 51st state. "We will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," he said. Then there was Rick Santorum's "I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be." And Herman Cain became a one-man gaffe-machine, including this answer to a question on whether he agreed with the Obama administration's policy on Libya: "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason … Nope, that's a different one… I gotta go back and see. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me that I agree or not disagree with Obama?" Oops indeed. And then there is just about everything Donald Trump has said in the past two years. With such juicy morsels on offer, little wonder the media has an enormous appetite for gaffes this election season. But have we really had an unprecedented series of gaffe-prone candidates, or is this largely the creation of the media? To be fair, reporters being on the look-out for flubs and missteps makes some sense during a primary campaign when candidates are being vetted and tested during a period where substantial policy differences are often few and far between. But is it still a fair ploy during the general election phase? Despite the glee with which campaign hacks seized on Mitt Romney’s somewhat luke-warm endorsement of London's Olympic readiness or vaguely implied criticism of Palestinians as he flattered Israel - does anyone really doubt he'd be able to be appropriately presidential on the world stage? And what about vice president Joe Biden (who has been known to be an affable blowhard for his 40 years in elected office) - does getting a bit mixed up about whether he's in Virginia or North Carolina when he’s in a border town really disqualify him for high office? And is the mere reference to people being in chains really "playing the race card"? But for both Biden and Romney, the narrative of being gaffe-prone is very hard to shake. Once established, just about any speech might contain a line that can be held up as yet another gaffe The media, media consumers and the campaigns seem to be hooked on the political sugar-fix that is the gaffe. President Obama's now-infamous "you didn't build that" comment is only a gaffe if you completely ignore the context and pretend he was saying something he wasn't – yet it, too, is now "a gaffe" – one that’s become a slogan for the Romney campaign. My co-host on Planet America Chas Licciadello has an interesting theory, which I am more than happy to steal: Chas reckons as news organisations cut back on senior staff we are seeing more junior reporters with less experience and less context covering the campaign. And those reporters lack the knowledge to cover policy in any depth, but they can easily write a story based on a gaffe or flub. I certainly suspect there's something in that, but I think there is more to it as well. Back in 1972, a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine named Tim Crouse wrote a classic of the campaign book genre that has tended to be overshadowed by the likes of Teddy White, Hunter S. Thompson and Richard Ben Cramer. As the press bus followed the likes of George McGovern, Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey around Iowa and New Hampshire, Crouse turned his focus on the members of the press. The result was The Boys on the Bus – and yes, in 1972 they were almost all boys, or partially-inebriated, chain-smoking men at least. Crouse found that there were some powerful forces leading to a kind of groupthink - certain influential reporters who could effectively determine the news of the day. Journalists with secondary newspapers or TV or radio stations would look to see what the likes of Johnny Apple of the The New York Times or David Broder of The Washington Post were filing from the campaign trail and follow suit. The reason was simple. Journalists had to answer to editors back at head office, who would be displeased if their reporter had missed the angle being covered on page one of the Times or the Post. That, Crouse concluded, was just one of the ways a "pack" of journalists was formed. And like any pack, from time to time they like to single out a weak opponent and bring them down – often by writing about seemingly trivial things like gaffes. Another reason Crouse noted that reporters tend to focus on mistakes is that they represent something new and different. Campaign reporters following a candidate for weeks on end from one town to another will tend to hear the same stump speech time and time again. The same jokes, the same attacks, the same vague policies, five, six times a day. The reporters stop taking notes when they hear it all again and there's no "news" to report – but if then suddenly if candidate gets heckled, says something dumb or trips over on the stairs getting onto a stage – then that becomes news. In 1972 it was Ed Muskie shedding tears (or not) before the New Hampshire primary that became a huge story, so did Hillary Clinton’s tears before New Hampshire voted in early 2008. In 2012, as there was in 2008, there is a new element: Twitter. And this is where the Licciadello Thesis can become useful. Most campaign reporters, certainly just about all under 45, are tweeting all the time this year, reducing debates and speeches to 140 characters or less. Not a lot of room for context or nuance in a tweet. The 24-hour news cycle has become the 24/7 news cycle, never starting or ending but just rolling from a tweet onto a news website, then a panel of pundits on cable news, and from there into a print edition or onto radio talk show – forcing candidates and their campaigns to immediate comment, refute, rephrase or react. Unlike in Tim Crouse's time, today's reporters can simply keep track of each other's tweets to know what the "pack leaders" are thinking and writing about, and the best tweeters are fast becoming the new leaders of that pack. The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza (@ryanlizza), Buzzfeed's Ben Smith (@buzzfeedben), Politico's Maggie Haberman (@maggiepolitico), The Atlantic's Molly Ball (@mollyesque), and Erin McPike (@erinmcpike) from Real Clear Politics are the Apples and Broders of 2012. That's not to say campaign veterans like Joe Klein, George Will or David Brooks now lack influence, or that the younger journalists and tweeters are by definition attracted to trivia, but it seems to me there is something in the speed and economy of the new media as it feeds into the old, stressed, cash-strapped, time-poor established media that may be fuelling a growing hunger for the superficially clickable - the gaffe.

    Abc Net
  6. 6
    The history of 'the recession we had to have'

    The history of 'the recession we had to have'

    It's a new term that has jumped into our lexicon this week with tragic fatalities in Victoria: Thunderstorm asthma. What is this anyway? Find out from an expert.

    ABC Sydney
  7. 7
    australiainstitute.org.au

    Paid Parental Leave: An expensive way to help affluent women

    Australiainstitute Org

    Original link no longer available

Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale

1-3: MALI

Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.

4-6: BAHAGYA

May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.

7-9: HALOS TOTOO

Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.

10: TUMPAK

Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.

Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.

Previous: C0506 Next: C0508