Reaction to Abbott's parental leave plan
March 10th, 2010 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Feminism, Howardia, Media, Parenting, Policy, Politics, Poverty, Sociology, Women | 59 Comments
As noted, Abbott’s International Women’s Day announcement of a paid parental leave plan has created a lot of debate here on LP [read previous threads here]. And it’s attracted a lot of commentary in the wider blogosphere and media.
Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion has a handle on the politics:
So the Coalition’s strategy [of] messing with the system by throwing anything at the Rudd Government that comes to hand continues. It doesn’t matter about the contradictions –introducing a big tax when the promise is no new taxes—as it is about getting noticed and destabilisation with whatever-it-takes to oppose the Rudd Government on everything.
The strategy is to wedge Labor—”supporting big business over working families” is the new talking point— and to win back female voters who have been deserting the Coalition.
Trevor Cook asks whether Abbott is really a Liberal. Meanwhile, in The Age, Leslie Cannold disputes the claim that parental leave is solely a women’s issue and Julia Perry in the SMH examines who should pay.
I’ve built on the arguments I made in a post here yesterday in a piece for The ABC’s The Drum Unleashed to nail the canard that Abbott’s plan is more ‘generous’ than Labor’s policy, and set out my reasons why it’s not something progressives should support.
Thanks for all your work on this, Mark.
I think one thing which needs to be kept in mind is the dismay in the Opposition party room about Abbott’s handling of the issue, which lends itself more to the view that the scheme is an idiosyncratic Abbott “thought bubble” rather than part of an intentional tactical ploy with the Senate in mind – that is, unless Abbott is simply being too smart by half.
Hard to know, Paul!
Andrew Bolt has his two cents’ worth as well.
Of course if Abbott votes it down in the Senate then he will have achieved his goal: no paid meternity leave.
QED.
Paul Norton – I think you are over-estimating the value of Bolt’s opinion.
Rayedish, my estimation of the value of Andrew Bolt’s opinion should be obvious to regular readers of LP.
Ths significance of Bolt’s comment is that a natural commentariat ally of Abbott is going ballistic, which suggests that whatever Abbott intended to do with his parental leave statement, he might have succeeeded in wedging his own side.
And here is the reaction from business.
“.”
That should tell you a lot about how seriously they are taking it.
Much as I hate to say it, Bolt actually makes some valid points IMHO. Aaarrggh!!!
Like many others at this esteemed site I find my-self reeling from the fact that I am in agreement with Bolt. Strange times indeed.
All Kevvie and Co need to do now is keep reminding the voters that this plan will have but one affect and that is to drive prices through the roof.
I read the Bolt article.
I nod my head in agreement.
I know find myself looking to the window to see if I can spot any other signs of armageddon.
It’s a bit sad it’s only garnered three comments for far on his site.
Sauer-Thompson has it backwards. Abbott hasn’t wedged Labor. He’s wedged himself against the pro-business elements of his party. And the lumpenproletariat whose votes he’s trying to win probably think that mothers should never be subsidised to have children. In their minds, it’s just another opportunity for the 17 year old check out chick at Coles to get knocked up again, and be paid for 6 months into the bargain, as opposed to their wives who have chosen to be stay at home mums for the sake of the kids, without getting paid by anybody.
Who in the Liberal Party’s actual and potential constituency supports this?
But on the other hand Ratty says he likes it.
I guess 11 years in office was insufficient time for Mr Howard to think up the idea himself.
It may well be that this is the last we hear from the coalition on great big new taxes …
why are you guys always so negative? After 11 years of divisiveness under the Howard Govt, Abbott wants to run a liberal party which unites the people of Australia. That’s what this policy is all about: uniting everyone in Australia – be they left, right, business, family, soldier, sailor, fisherman or tailor – against him.
Doesn’t it give you a warm fuzzy glow?
The Monk is off the reservation with this one. If he didn’t have the media/polling movement he has achieved since his rise to the Leadership, I doubt he would have been let get away with it. Maybe he still won’t but I wouldn’t bet on it – maybe some massaging of the details in the future to sort out the funding and eligibility.
I would prefer to see some other actions before this one. In particular two things – income splitting for married/defacto cohabiting couples with children and efforts to increase new land availability and reduce land developmet costs through more government investment in estate infrastructure. Both of those will have a significant impact on the affordabilty equation (ability to live on reduced incomes) for young people planning to have a brood.
also, who knew Bolt could count past 10?
I agree with income splitting Razor.
It’s transparent, easy to administer, predictable in its effects on public finances, and potentially infinitely adjustable through manipulation of marginal rates and thresholds.
Paul N – I know that you are not a fan of Bolt – it was just a cheeky aside in regards to the generousity of ‘two cents worth’ and I absolutely agree with you about the significance of Bolt’s column suggesting that Abbott has succeeded in wedging his own side. In fact if Bolt hadn’t been valourising SAHM so much and so dismissive of those who rely on childcare some of his points would be have sensible. But the broader point is, Abbott’s fan club aren’t happy about the scheme.
Heather Ridout’s reaction to this was a bolt through the head for this “idea”. Negative on so many levels.
Memo to Kevin Rudd: Take a ride to Yarralumla and ask for a Double Dissolution.
“Take a ride to Yarralumla and ask for a Double Dissolution.”
There are reasons to do with Senate terms that effectively preclude this option before July 1.
But he must be tempted.
I don’t think so Katz. Most obviously it would lead to a disconnect in the two houses and deprive the government of senate positions early. July is the earliest he could go and get them when they are most useful.
Politically, his interest lies in giving Abbott the rope he needs to hang himself. Every day Abbott looks more like Latham and in the end all that stuff is going to leave him nothing to say that doesn’t contradict what he said earlier. And Rudd has long said he is for serving his full term. Going early would confirm the Abbott Rattles Rudd meme.
The government just has to look like it is getting on with the job of governing, roll out the Henry Tax Review, keep working on the hospitals plan and allow Abbott to be the amusing sideshow. In the meantime, according to the economic analysts, demand for labour will continue to be strong and business and consumer confidenxce high. Those are poor indicators for turfing out a first term government, particualrly an ALP one since the Coalition’s best chance of getting non-rusted on ALP voters to switch is the perception that large numbers of people might lose their jobs, their houses or face serious hardship and that they would do a better job. There’s virtually no space for thinking that — and indeed, the coalition has scarcely mentioned economic management, much less postured as the paragon of responsible financial control.
So Rudd, who is still comfortably ahead on 2PP can expect his numbers to improve as people’s minds get focused on the idea of the elections. In this setting of course he doesn’t really need a DD. The half senate will clear out enough Liberals and Fielding for him to have control and he will get what he wants without it. Running a referendum on Federal control of hospitals or the GST carve up might not be a bad idea though.
Also, it’s not clear how this issue will play in the polls in the short run, especially given the novel alignments seen in the various responses to it, whereas it’s likely to become more of a problem for the Coalition in the medium term as they attempt with great difficulty to get all their ducks in a row.
@11 – Sam, I think Sauer-Thompson was talking about Abbott’s intentions (which certainly include swamping the health debate, and may include coming up with an excuse to vote against parental leave in the Senate). They may or may not misfire.
@23 – Paul, I’d venture to make a modest prediction that Labor might be headed for an uptick in the polls.
Some Coalition MPs seem to have suggested that this plan came about so suddenly because Abbott had seen polling.
I strongly suspect that the Labor Party might have had a bit of a turnaround – perhaps related to the National Curriculum stuff and health, and Abbott might be responding to that. It could also explain why he felt he had to release some ‘positive policy’. It could well be that his negativism has had an impact – I note that Labor have been reiterating the ‘Senate obstructionism’ line again this morning.
In short, on where the parties actually stand, one shouldn’t believe what one reads in The Australian.
Rudd won’t win a referendum without bipartisan support.
The odds of Gillard being PM by July 2011 are shortening.
Don’t get my hopes up like that Howard. What are you basing this on?
Some of Bolt’s flaying of Abbott is on point, but other bits are odd.
He says: “Business will pass on the costs of his scheme to consumers, so all of us will be chipping in to pay the working wives of even the super-rich their present salary for six months, up to the equivalent of a $150,000 annual salary, while they have a baby”. The same argument could be made against sick leave or long-service leave or even annual leave.
Great comment by George Megalogenis on his blog:
“This policy creates a permanent entitlement, but pretends it can be funded with a temporary levy on a few businesses.
I wish life were that simple, I’d go into politics myself and give us all free AFL memberships funded by a temporary levy on the team that wins the NRL grand final each year.”
“The same argument could be made against sick leave or long-service leave or even annual leave.”
Not at all. Sick leave and annual leave are paid by all employers, not a select few who will either pass on the costs to consumers or seek to avoid the tax altogether.
“The same argument could be made against sick leave or long-service leave or even annual leave.”
Except that most people don’t choose to get sick and they don’t usually get 6 months worth of sick leave no matter how sick they are and annual leave is a rest period from work with remuneration for the whole year simply covering payment for the leave period.
Having a baby is not the same as either and so saying the same arguments could be applied to sick and annual leave is incorrect.
More sense from George M:
“ …* the government’s, which is progressive (a flat payment is worth more, in proportional terms, to mothers on lower incomes),
* or the Coalition’s, which is regressive by being pegged to income, so the well-off get more dollars in the hand than the battlers.
Every dollar a politician spends involves a choice to deny someone else that same dollar.
The higher-income left love the Abbott handout, while the lower-income conservative gets to cheer that big business is supposedly paying.
Oh yes Howard@26 but you forgot the rest of the liberal propaganda. You know, the bit where Rudd takes up a position @the U.N.
Andrew Bolt pointing out the Emperor has no clothes??!!??!!
“Abbott has blunted his best line – that Rudd is threatening a big new tax to “stop” global warming – by himself offering a big new tax to pay women to have babies.”
Tony Abbott has dishonoured a commitment to vote for a bill his party negotiated to amend and agreed to pass, claiming dishonestly that it was nothing but a big new tax. However imperfect, the ETS is certainly not a tax and is an effort to do something for future generations, the planet and all mankind.
Within weeks he is prancing around engaging the media, the public, business large and small and our national parliament in a debate on his personally conceived proposal for what is undoubtedly a great big new tax to fund a costly measure which will further advantage a wealthy few and disadvantage the majority.
Why waste time discussing the merits or otherwise of this proposal? It simply encourages his delusions of grandeur. The man is irrational, mad, unable to see his own extreme condition. Time for him to be clothed, led away and committed.
adrian @ 30 – well the irony is that its the big businesses who are most likely to be the ones already paying for paid maternity leave for their employees who would be asked to also pay it for other companies employees. As for sick leave/annual leave, of course employers also pass those costs onto consumers as well – it doesn’t make them necessarily bad things though.
I am also horrified to be agreeing with a chunk of what Bolt has to say!! Although it is a rant, it’s far from the usual spittle and foam flecked soap box stuff he spews out.
I did read in The Advertiser (I think) that the Greens won’t support Labour’s parental leave, but are gaga over Abbott’s scheme, largely because biggish business will be slugged. That the payment is far more favourable to highly paid women doesn’t seem to be a consideration. Are they turning into (Wealthy) Family First?
@31 –
How very sociological of George M! Speaking as a sessional academic and therefore a member of the lower-income left! ;)
I think Bolt is right to point out that targeting a limited number of businesses is wrong. But the phrase of his I quoted would apply whether there was a levy on 320 businesses or on all businesses. He is saying that the cost of paying employee leave is passed on to the consumer etc etc. I’m sure Bolt would have made the same argument back in 1935 when one week’s annual leave was first included as an award standard.
Whether we see parental leave as akin to other forms of leave that employees can access or akin to some sort of social welfare pay out will go a long way to determining how people approach this.
The fact that parental leave falls differentially on the working population is an argument to spread the cost of financing it across all employers, by way of a common levy, to avoid individual employers discriminating against women of child bearing age.
The Australian Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, has come to realise the importance of societies principle productive drivers, have on the economy and society in general. Its a pity the lemming like who wanted to be driven over the cliff encompassing the ETS, don’t see, the most important benefits to the human families ability to drive productive choice.
This started out with the ‘leaders call’ and the ‘better to seek forgiveness later than permission first’ comments suggesting an arrogance which if transferred to personal and sexual relationships could be very disturbing. I plead poetic license on the “droit de seigneur’ meme. It’s come out as another polly pome which doesn’t scan consistently but seems to fit this particular thread.
I’ll address the the darker side of Abbott’s psyche more seriously some other time.
In France ‘droit de seigneur’
Is understood by one and all.
Here Tony Abbott would prefer
To translate it as ‘the leader’s call’.
Of course he would prefer
The team to back him to a man
And automatically defer
No matter what his latest plan.
But that’s unlikely to occur.
There’s always a dissenting voice
And someone playing saboteur.
Surely not though Barnaby Joyce?
Happ’ly that very worthy senator
Fighting floods up at St George
Had no time for talk or to confer
And a new tax policy to forge.
So Tony with not a single ‘um’ or ‘er’
Trusting there’d be no remission
Of the rain and and rising water
Announced new policy without permission.
Imagine all the rage and flying fur!
Nationals showing real combativeness!
Tony claimed he’d never meant to err
And on his knees he begged forgiveness!
Anyone else detect a faint aroma of greenslime?
Greenslime is otherwise pre-occupied these days posting on skepticlawyer and Catallaxy. He disappeared quick smart on Club Troppo earlier this year after being [redundantly] outed by Ken Parish.
His current moniker one the two aforementioned blogs is “Peter Patton”.
Mark, in the Drum article you say: So, the claim that Abbott’s payment lasts for longer is untrue, and fairness or its alleged ‘better’ status is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I may be missing something but I can’t see where you rebut the idea that 18 weeks is less than 26 weeks.
I am not arguing Abbott’s scheme is fair. But for a women on the average wage (or any wage above the minimum wage) it is certainly better than Rudd’s scheme. What’s progressive about cutting a women’s wages for having a baby?
I also think Abbot might address your equity concerns by applying the minimum wage to all those eligible who are actually paid less than it because they work part time etc.
And since when have the left been opposed to taxing the rich? We could be using Abbott’s example to call for a thoroughgoing tax regime imposed on the rich and big business, not some half arsed 1.7% levy on the top 3200 companies (or rather those with taxable incomes greater than $5m.)
John, check the link I posted in my first post on the topic to the productivity commission report. It makes it clear that a range of other payments and transfers effectively extend the period of paid leave to six months.
Life for the upper-middle class in the new Liberal nanny state:
1. Have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.
2. ?????
3. PROFIT!!!!!
What happens in July?
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/01/possible-federal-election-date.html
@22 Fran, I’ve been thinking about this, and Rudd’s position seems as clear-cut as you say. What’s not clear-cut is what Abbott and the media are doing. This latest “policy on the run” (ah! evergreen phrase!) is particularly glaring for its unilateralism and hand-biting of its primary feeders, business. The media is uncritically putting this out as an actual policy. What is going on?
I’ve come to the conclusion that the coalition has written off this coming election and are trying random things to mess with Rudd, expecting to gradually wear him down in the next electoral cycle. Whatever the media is doing is a continuing mystery; championing an anti-business coalition policy is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen Oz do. Either they really really bored, or tabloid hyper-reality is taking its toll.
@40 Patricia, lovely lines!
Thanks for the info, Mark.
It would appear that Rudd has a window of about two months,ending 11 August 2010 in which to call and hold a double dissolution.
Those two months promise to be very interesting indeed.
PS. What a complex, lawyerly, document the Australian Constitution is!
About a week or so ago (I can’t find the piece so can’t link to it) the bookies were tipping late August for some reason. Sooner he does it the better I reckon. My anger at the Libs, thar fool Fielding, and the ego-tripping Xenophon is growing stronger by the day.
Here’s Mischa Schubert in the Age.
1. It seems to me that amending the scheme as the Greens plus Xenophon and Fielding suggest would be a reasonable thing to do, so in that sense Mischa has a point.
That said, there’s a lot more to ensuring that having a child and keeping your work options open than doing this. As was noted on Radio Natioanl this morining, Germany has a more generous scheme than proposed in Australia by far but there is little evidence that it is raising female participation in the workplace.
Quality childcare nearby, a comprehensive reintegration package at similar responsibility, flexibility etc are also issues that need to be addressed. It would be no bad thing if companies that could demonstrate something like best practice in workplace inclusion would get preference (all else being close to equal) in state-originating tenders.
Schubert makes the mistake of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Rudd has plainly wedged the Coalition into supporting policy that is anathema to a large segment of the conservative side of politics.
If Rudd refuses to compromise this wedging remains alive until the double dissolution and the possible joint session.
Barring a miracle, Labor will win a double dissolution election handsomely. With or without a joint sitting the original legislation will pass.
After the administrative mechanism is put in place it will be relatively simple to tinker with the parameters of entitlement and liability, etc.
Under those circumstances, parental support will become a permanent feature of Australia’s political economy, just like Whitlam’s Medibank/Medicare.
Acceding to the various proposed amendments, however, delivers the initiative to parties and interests whose genuine commitment to parental support is questionable to say the least.
Schubert should learn patience.
And here’s the latest from the
Purple PriestMad MonkAll I would say to Julie Bishop is, that Mr. Rudd is very, very polite, under the circumstances.
“Acceding to the various proposed amendments, however, delivers the initiative to parties and interests whose genuine commitment to parental support is questionable to say the least.”
Katz, do you think Labor would really be heartbroken if they had to extend it to six months? We always see these things through our own rosy or blue tinged specs of course, but I thought yesterday’s unusual parade of Labor heavies condemning Abbot was just theatre and with Bob Brown coming in to give Tony a bit of moral support it seemed so farcical that one feels it had to be a set up. Tony is well and truly wedged into passing the legislation and possibly even supporting the Greens with their preferred six months amendment.
Watching how strong Julia G and the government are on the community services sector wage claim I can’t imagine them really not wanting the full six months. Three looked modest and responsible, of course, but it was under criticism from the left generally for not being enough. Tony has stepped in and really been helpful to the cause, and of course copped a lot of flak for inconsistency and high handedness, to say nothing of p.ing off the business sector.
If six months gets through I can see smiles and high fives all round the cabinet table.
Patricia @ 56 – I think most in the government would like extending the parental leave to six months. What they won’t like is being seen as being forced to do that because of Abbott. So I would not be surprised at all if they oppose the extension giving cost as a reason.
Patricia WA, did you notice the comment Mark made in reply to John Passant@44 about the Labor scheme?
Paul @ 54, that ABC piece was a hoot!
Bishop clearly hasn’t yet realised there has been a fairly recent change of govt, and, for the first time ever, Barnaby Joist has declined to talk about something when he’s not across the detail.