A lot has been said about Tony Abbott’s parental leave speech yesterday and today on this blog, on these two threads. As I suspected would occur, most of the qualifications and the actual non-policy aspect of the policy were not reported in today’s press, and the general line was that Abbott’s scheme was ‘better’, because it offered income support for a longer period and at a replacement level of income, rather than the minimum wage.
That’s highly questionable – or rather, it would be ‘better’ for those who are already relatively advantaged, and worse for many who are not.
Let’s put some facts on the table.
The Government’s scheme would pay eligible recipients the adult federal minimum wage ($543.78) for 18 weeks. Other benefits and transfers available would provide support equivalent to six months.
Abbott’s scheme would pay someone on $150 000 a year $75 000 for six months (the full replacement of the wage being the reason why his plan would cost around $3 billion dollars rather than the government’s $300 million a year). But someone on less than the current minimum wage would presumably only receive what they earn. So if someone works casually for a couple of days a week, they might get, say, $250 a week from a Coalition government compared to $542.78 from Labor – because “All those employed with a reasonable degree of attachment to the labour force” – including contractors, the self employed and casuals are eligible under Labor. Or perhaps such workers would get nothing from the Coalition, as the entire tenor of the proposal seems geared to full time work.
The point of the scheme proposed by the Productivity Commission was precisely to target public assistance to those most in need of it, and not to provide additional benefits to higher income workers, who were much more likely to have reasonable arrangements for parental leave in place, and much better economic resources to cope with a loss in income. The Productivity Commission rightly anticipated that those with employers who had a better capacity to pay, and employees with stronger market bargaining power, could access supplementary schemes from their workplaces. The Labor proposal seeks to level the playing field and enable those who are on lower incomes, whose attachment to the labour force is less secure, and whose resources for raising children are more straightened are the appropriate targets of publicly funded income support.
So, the claim that it lasts for longer is untrue, and fairness or its alleged ‘better’ status is very much in the eye of the beholder.
[Btw, the point of contrast between Ruddite dithering and 'Direct Action' Tony is also a falsehood. Abbott says his sheme would start in "his first two years in government" in response to a question on Lateline, while the government's intention is to begin its scheme in January 2011.]
In short, as Terry aptly put it on another thread:
The principle that payments are based on income rather than need simply entrenches existing inequalities, and will do little to benefit the vast majority of mothers and children.
It’s a regressive, not a progressive scheme.
As I said in my post last night, the welfare state isn’t the sole creation of social democratic regimes. There is also a conservative welfare state, as Gosta Esping-Andersen argued, which is dedicated not to the reduction of inequality but to support for favoured members of ‘traditional’ social categories. This is precisely what Abbott’s plan does, and its inspiration has bugger all to do with any putative conversion to the importance of working women’s issues in his mind, or even any disseminated influence of feminism as a social movement, but everything to do with a highly paternalistic and conservative social outlook. Oh, and base electoral politics, Howard style.
There is no good reason why any progressives should be tempted to support it for even a passing millisecond.
Update: I’ve set out my reasons for opposing Abbott’s plan at greater length in the ABC’s The Drum this morning.
Update: I’ve put up a links post to some of the reaction to Abbott’s plan.
Well there’s a bit of a tension on this blog between posts saying that this isn’t a “real” policy, and those proclaiming it as a breakthrough for feminism.
That’s ok, Terry, the claim that we’re a ‘hive mind’ was never one that we accepted!
Quality stuff at LP over the past couple of weeks as far as I’m concerned! Enjoyed the debate in both posts, now with lots to chew on as far as this ‘policy’ is concerned.
Though I’m not so sure Abbott is as calculated as so many seem to think. This is all about run-and-gun off the cuff politics, oppose the Govt strongly and fire off the odd scud policy missile.
That said I agree with Mark in that this has sweet FA to do with women and is all about a paternalistic conservative outlook (my first impression on hearing it announced), though I do think this approach is also working to narrow perceptions.
But what do I know, I’m not a political analyst even though I do play one on the internet.
Oh thank goodness. I was starting to worry about this place.
Again I ask…will this be available to same sex couples?
And to further add…will this be available to working single mothers?
Why hasn’t anyone in the media asked this?
@5 – indeed, tssk.
The whole tenor of the proposal (short on detail as it is, and not yet a ‘policy’, as we recall) is that it would seem to be framed for full time working people. There’s no more detail available, but it’s worth making the point that:
(a) more women than men are in casual or insecure employment;
(b) women tend to earn less than men;
(c) women on above average earnings are a lot rarer than men on above average earnings.
As Terry said, it reinforces existing inequalities, and it will do bugger all for the majority of women.
If that was true, then wouldn’t it make sense to means test the assistance based on household income and either divert the saved money elsewhere or increase the amount or length of time that the payments were made for to those who qualify?
The way the government has created their parental leave scheme its more like they’re treating looking after a baby as a job and they’ll pay you to do it for 18 weeks. Level of need for financial support doesn’t come into consideration.
Mark @ 6 – Under Labor’s scheme, because of the gender pay gap, families will experience a larger drop in household income if the father takes the parental leave than if the mother does. Paying parental leave based on actual prior income makes it more likely that fathers will be able to take the parental leave.
“And to further add…will this be available to working single mothers?”
I would imagine not. Since the changes to Parenting Allowance, implemented by the Howard government, they will continue to be required to work and look after their young ones. Probably in poorly paid service industry employment serving lattes to their professional betters on generous benefits.
I don’t think it’s an either-or here. Paul’s point was that feminism must have made some inroads into the public psyche because in a previous generation that kind of policy, even though we can see it would benefit mainly the already privileged, wouldn’t even have been on the table – the conservatives like Tony would have been dreaming up some other kind of scheme to encourage women to procreate, which didn’t involve any idea of a return to work (and yes, I’m one of the ones that think that procreation is what’s really in the back of his mind.)
Thanks Mark, for saying it like it is.
The front page of The Australian today was completely bananas, lauding Abbott’s hair-brained thought bubble as another step forward towards the Lodge. Really. Julie Bishop’s Death Stare last night on Q&A would have made a better story…
Perhaps, Helen, but there are a lot of other things that have changed over the last twenty or forty years (ie the entry of more than 30% of women into the labour market – many young and poor women always worked, and what’s changed has been the access of women to better paid and more highly skilled work, and concomitantly, therefore, the breakdown of the social norms against middle class women working). To some degree, feminism is causative, and in others epiphenomenal. The changing structure of the labour market, and the family, are also shaped by other variables. One could imagine a much more segmented and unfair labour market which still had a much higher female participation rate than 40 years ago in the absence of feminism, but on the other hand, feminism itself seems causally related to the desire of women to have access to a less segmented and unfair, etc. So I think explanations at the level of ‘feminism has changed stuff so this could be proposed’ don’t actually explain much, and are more than a bit circular, and am sceptical of them when what is being proposed is not to my mind much to do with feminism.
@11, cheers, grace, the front page of The Australian gets the inner fact checker in me going frequently!
I should add to that the contention that feminism also has a strong transformative dimension, which I think is found in all feminisms – including liberal feminisms, by necessity because the barriers to equality of opportunity are still so pervasive, and therefore I think the fact that this proposal seeks to further entrench existing inequalities, and that it’s framed very much in terms of an equation between women’s work and child-bearing and care is the clincher.
Again, I’d suggest reading the whole text of Abbott’s speech, to which I linked in last night’s post.
tssk @5: you’ll have to get out the plastic models and explain to the LNP how same sex couples can have babies before that gets advanced.
Apparently, it hasn’t been well received by business, according to the meeja. It seems to me that Abbott is just echoing Rudd’s policies, without the metooism tag they stuck on Rudd. You can tell they’ve have been made on the run-no detail, just desperate uncosted oneupmanship.
Hopefully, people will be able to see through it. And I guess the point could be made that these are policies Rudd had espused prior to his election.
Helen – “I don’t think it’s an either-or here. Paul’s point was that feminism must have made some inroads into the public psyche because in a previous generation that kind of policy, even though we can see it would benefit mainly the already privileged, wouldn’t even have been on the table..”
In the mid-1970′s my Mum, a single mother of 5, was running her own childcare centre. Her main customers were professional couples and the occassional single Dad, who needed to put his child in care while he earned a living.
A couple of weekends ago, while having a discussion about equality, Mum revealed that when she decided to start the child care business, she thought it would be prudent to brush up on her book-keeping skills. The local adult-learning centre was running course with the aim of re-skilling women to re-enter the workforce when their kids were in school. My Mum described the feelings of injustice when she discovered that the wife of the local doctor was able to receive government assistance for books etc, and my Mum wasn’t eligible for the same.
Same old, same old.
Mum and I also talked about community attitudes to single parents and their progeny at the times, some of it was quite hurtful, and contrasted it with the attitudes to professional couples and all the material splendour they could surround themselves with, because they were essentially outsourcing their child-rearing [sorry if that sounds crass]. She remembered one couple who’s kids routinely joined me and my siblings at the dinner table, simply because their parents had failed to collect them, they rarely advised my Mum that they would be late. I often wonder if it ever crossed their minds that her feeding their kids, meant less food for us, or whether they just thought that mothering was what she was on this planet to do, naturally!…reminds me of those birds that shove their own eggs in the nests of wrens to trick them into raising their young.
I feel really lucky for my upbringing, and the insight it’s given me into the way the world ticks. Nothings really changed for the poor, in fact it’s probably a lot worse for single parents.
Sorry for the self-indulgent anecdotes, but I just wanted to reiterate that social engineering policies, that seek productivity gains from women, have been around for longer than some may realise.
What’s with Bob Brown and The Greens? They seem to have misjudged again and look more and more like a Tony cheer squad.
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2010/03/09/Business_slams_Abbotts_parental_leave_437897.html
And sadly more and more irrelevant.
Interesting isn’t it. The Greens love it and Bob Brown has endorsed it. What the rest of the left and the ALP does not like is that this is more like ALP policy but is being pushed by Abbott. The ALP has been shown up as lacking. They look desperate in their attacks and the focus on Abbott changing his mind is ridiculous. How many people on this blog would say they have the same views now as ten years ago? Gees, I used to be in the ALP until I realised what a bunch of sell out careerists they were. I changed my mind. So what.
I do have some concerns about the cap of $150 000 and think it should be half that but Abbott has come up with a way to charge big business with the costs rather than the taxpaying public. The left is looking for ways to attack what it secretly knows is a better policy than the ALP has. At least the Greens have the courage to endorse it.
Mark, you can’t have it both ways, which is what you are doing. Basically you’re saying Abbott won’t do this but he’s annoyed business groups. Sometimes, given the party room back lash, he’s decided stuff the party and business, we need to destroy the working family base Labor has built. Whether his policy is credible is another thing and whether it is in the national interest quite another, but he’s now said I made a leader’s call … that is language you can’t dump. They’re likely (if not certain) to take this to the people. This is like Rudd’s health take over it might have been a non-policy but it was a commitment which in many ways is just as strong. The big test is whether they include in the budget costing process with the requirement for Budget Honesty. If I were Labor I’d attack it if it’s not. I think you’re captured by a view of Abbott that doesn’t bear out … he’s more DLP in reality than Thatcherite Tory. He is a conundrum on that front for Labor, perhaps even more than Howard was. Abbott’s test is whether he can quell disquiet among the Thatcherites who put him in the job. I said a week or so ago, that Abbott would ‘run to the right in the primary (to get the job, and to the centre in the main game’. His parental leave policy is radical no doubt but certainly not right wing. It is the most interesting political play for many years. Despite Health, you can’t now say that Abbott is only running negative … this is clearly a major policy change, designed at disrupting a Labor dominance in IR/workers’ rights. I think the unions are truly perplexed and that is interesting … that whole Burrow line saying that this is a smokscreen has the potential to look like sour grapes. I’d say that Mark you might be joining her.
@20 –
No, it isn’t, Spana for the reasons I gave in the post. And nor is it “a better policy”, for the reasons I gave in the post.
And Bob Brown should know better.
@21 – Corin, find me where I said he won’t take this to the election. I said that it was not couched as a policy, and left him a fair bit of wiggle room. It may well be that pissing off his own backers hardens his desire to propose it as stated. However, I doubt it’s the electoral winner that you seem to think it will be. For a start, it’s an obvious repudiation of his ‘no new taxes’ pledge, whether it’s called a ‘levy’ or an ‘investment in human capital’ (Sharman Stone today).
Nor do I think I’ve ever alleged that he was a ‘Thatcherite Tory’, an analogy I don’t think is all that useful in the context of Australian right wing politics. I have, on quite a few occasions, pointed out that he’s far more of a conservative than a liberal, and is quite happy with a big state and social engineering.
Abbott has come up with a way to charge big business with the costs rather than the taxpaying public
Nonesense Spana, they’re already talking about offering other tax cuts to business to offset this, so where does this can get kicked to?
And if Spana or anyone else thinks that big business will just absorb these costs and not pass them on to those who can least afford them, then I’ve got a used bridge to sell you.
Indeed, anthony, and as pointed out, some of the businesses that Abbott seeks to capture in his levy net (and as pointed out in a number of places, he’s made two different and incompatible statements about where the cutoff is) are properly described as medium sized rather than big. An engineering firm with 200 employees was cited tonight – if he’s prepared to wear them passing on the cost of the tax to their customers, or job losses, he should say so.
In general, I think it’s much more desirable that parental leave entitlements be born either by the actual employer, or be publicly funded, or be a mixture of both according to the capacity to pay of the employer. This ‘tax on big business’ stuff has very little policy logic, and is largely populist crap.
Nice work Mark. Good to see you taking up the cudgel. I suspect that by announcing this “non policy” on International Womens Day and being to say that “look mine’s twice as big as Kevin’s”. We would all be mightily impressed. ‘fraid not!
Crossed, adrian.
I am sure there’s a limit to the civic consciousness Abbott wants to inspire in business ranks.
@27 – cheers, Eat The Rich!
And again, it’s important to read the text of Abbott’s speech. The ‘levy’ on business, he speculates, might only be temporary while the Commonwealth budget is still in deficit.
@Joe2 – I agree, it was disappointing to hear Bob Brown’s enthusiasm for this policy. At the very least he could have qualified it by raising some of the issues that Mark has raised with this post.
Let me make just one more point about the claim that Sharan Burrows is on the wrong side here. She’s not.
This policy would remunerate people, during the period they are on parental leave, at the same rate at which they are valued on the existing labour market. That is to say, the rate at which it’s paid is entirely dependent on income, not need, and that income, in turn, is usually less for women than men, and ‘flexibility’ bears down hardest on those in the worst labour market bargaining position – the very reason why WorkChoices was *rightly* so unpopular with many working women.
This is one of the key ways in which it would reinforce existing inequalities.
It really is wrong to suggest it’s either (a) good or (b) Labor or (c) left policy.
Mind you, you do wonder how having the support of Bob Brown will help Tony’s cred with his own constituency
Mark, apologies and I’m sure you’re right. BTW – I don’t think it’s a masterstroke I actually think it’s madness but it sure is interesting. The way to attack it is that it surely isn’t equitable on any measure and probably won’t target the working family that well. It does target people further up the earning spectrum. I do think it could work politically but he cost of it is crazy for the results in targetting key votes. It makes Labor’s life a bit hard though. I think Rudd is not Keating, able to dissect the policy failure as he always goes political, see him undermining based on ‘Liberal disquiet’. I think that is the same as what he did over the ETS and that was a strategic failure despite being a short term tactical success.
When are people going to realise that Abbott is not going to be releasing any more actual policies, just these vague musings about possible things that he actually has no mandate from his party room to implement.
The Coalition has been cruising on the idea that Abbott will shake up Liberal policy based on the change in position on the CPRS, but all we get is these weird not-quite-a-policy speeches. Which blogs like this one obsess over more than his supporters.
It’s about time he was called on this charade of rolling non-announcements, and had his oxygen supply cut off.
@34 – no probs, Corin. I’ve always also pointed out that Abbott would have to come out with something positive at some point, and that it would be likely to be half baked and have the potential to do the crazybrave backfire thing. This may be that moment. Labor has quite a range of possible attacks, including but not limited to what this says about Abbott’s economic credibility and his position on tax.
“It’s about time he was called on this charade of rolling non-announcements, and had his oxygen supply cut off.”
How do you propose that would happen, Sam, given that it would require a thoughtful and questioning media? Today was the first time he was under a bit of scrutiny because his own side questioned his plan.
Mark, I accept that but Rudd beat Howard and Costello easily despite being no where near him on economic credibility. It isn’t a great period for economic liberals and I can’t imagine that changing for some time. Turnbull proved that liberalism has a very small base vote in Australia. Despite the removal of the ‘Australian Settlement’ in the last 30 years the politics of liberal reform never penetrated past the Canberra elite and the times that required such reform, such as balance of payments crisis, high unemployment and inflation together. After 30 years of reform, people want a ‘quiet life’ and a hand out or two. Especially parents who have an entitlement mentality. i’d say that Abbott may be inconsistent but his inconsistency isn’t on ‘everyone’. Well technically it is, as higher taxes even on large corporates will feed into lower employment and higher prices (well it’s likely to anyway). But I’m not convinced having worked on a campaign that the public really has that much policy engagement or interest. The whole ETS has been a case in point. More and more, I’m convinced that Rudd can’t sell reform and Gillard would make a more effective sales person for the Government. She will almost certainly lead the attacks on this on policy as Rudd can only do politics it seems. She is very interesting …
And of course most of the meeja seemed to miss the key point that the payments would be in proportion to existing salary so that those in least need would receive the most, while those in least need would receive the least.
As Mark and others have said, this is the most significant aspect of this announcement and I’d be surprised if it is picked up with much enthusiasm tomorrow.
er.. those in most need would receive the least…
Mark, you put your finger on an aspect of Labor’s scheme I like – the fact that it will have a small-ish equalizing effect on incomes for women.
But all this just confirms what we know about Tony Abbott: he’s not really a Liberal at all. He barely has a positive philosophy of his own. He seems motivated by a DLP/neoconservative hatred for the Left and the “New Class”. If Labor’s for it, he’s against it. Truth be told, that’s a motivating factor for many Coalition supporters.
I stand by my hunch that the Coalition is in for one of its biggest defeats.
Spana @20: You say
The reality is that business will pass on the tax to the taxpaying public in the same way as they pass on the GST – Don’t expect them to reduce their after tax profits if they can avoid it. The GST and company tax are equally un-progressive so, for us poor peasants it would have made no practical difference if Tony had promised to increase GST instead of creating a new tax. (Sorry “investment in human capital.” in Libspeak.)
This country has suffered for years from a mind set that equates tax with original sin. As a result our infrastructure and social services have been run down. Kevin’s new health plan would be a lot more attractive if taxes were raised to pay for the extra health services instead of what we get being compromised by the need to convince us that it can only be paid for by “savings.” Perhaps Tony’s change of heart on taxes should be welcomed by the government as a growth in maturity.
Does the government have any credible reason for delaying the introduction of their parental support system to Jan 2011?
@joe2
It would also require blogs like this one to stop over analysing his every utterance. The talk about this latest one should have stopped at “Oh, it’s not policy? Let’s talk when it is.”
5 of the last 10 posts here at LP have been about Tony Abbott. It’s as dull as his rhetoric.
Further, I understand that as the leader his word is deemed as indicative of the Coalitions direction. But debate on this as if it were actual policy inflates it to that level without him having to actually call it such.
So he get’s to go to an election with these ideas as a perceived platform, but can’t be called to account for it. In the meantime it adds to his manufactured persona which is working on certain voters. It’s a free pass he shouldn’t be given.
Mark my guess is that they’ll take this to the election but the cap will end up at $75K or $100K rather than $150K and this will be a token gesture of consulting with business. That would target the working family demographic without the policy being identified as a boon for rich lawyers and doctors … Bronwen Bishop spoke ‘passionately in support’ it’s reported how funny! One thing is for certain is that Abbott is as much fun as Latham was and we’ll see if he’s as catastrophic electorally … I’m not yet sure one way or the other. One thing seems clear is that he’s not as catastrophic as Turnbull was.
@43 – I’m sorry that you find it dull, Sam, but it’s an election year, and I happen to think that it’s important to put the Opposition and its leader under scrutiny. It’s kinda core business for a political blog, I’d have thought.
@41 – Ginja, I hope your hunch is right.
@38 – Corin, I think Gillard is a better communicator than Rudd, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her lead the attack on this for Labor. I think people under-estimate the degree to which Rudd can project empathy when he tries, though.
The best way for Labor to counter this one is to get their version in place (or blocked by Abbot) before the next election. Shouldn’t be hard. Even better, thank Tony for his suggestions and modify their system so the people at the bottom of the pile will be better off than they would be under Abbot.
Right on, Mark. I should have read this before commenting in the other post; you nailed this.
The media are letting the Abbott party roll on, but the public will wake up with a real hangover about two weeks before an election, just like they did with Latham (who was a damned sight smarter than Abbott, and [strangely] more conservative with his policies).
Don’t get me wrong Mark, I appreciate your motive and your analysis, I just think that it’s lending too much legitimacy to him while the Liberals concurrently don’t offer any accountability by offering it as an actual policy.
I also feel that this has been true for just about everything since the Coalitions change of leader and position on the CPRS. It’s pretty clear they are avoiding detail while they focus on the “style” of the Abbott flavoured Liberals, and that’s the bait that’s being taken, more-so elsewhere, but here in the past few days as well.
That is exactly what Tone would prefer, Sam@43. Allow his thought bubbles go unquestioned just as the media keep doing. Would you have picked up the built in injustice in this proposed package, that even Bob Brown missed completely, if Mark had not picked up on it and helped clarify?
All that’s happening here is that Abbott is being put under the blow torch now, rather in the last ten minutes of the election, by people who are prepared to think about the issues a little more deeply. And he is giving away bucketloads on the kind of thinking that will be behind policy.
You do not actually think Liberals will have that policy up and open to proper scrutiny by voters in time for them to understand it do you?
I think what is interesting about the policy is that whilst it’s a massive tax and spend it is very honestly so (and there is an open tax slug) …….. it is mad public policy but that doesn’t mean it’s not potentially popular – certainly populist.
@joe2
Bob Brown’s word isn’t some sort of litmus test of injustice. I may not have noticed it specifically, but I probably wouldn’t have looked at it very hard because I just expect what Tony Abbott says to be founded on, or riddled with, backward and regressive ideas. He lost my consideration at “women should regard their virginity as a gift”.
I might suggest that what Tone would prefer is to be seen as a bit of a maverick, it fits with the action man image. The whole “party room” brouhaha could just be theatre. I might suggest that, but how would I know, and how would you? We just don’t. So what’s the point in feeding these real-life trolls?
I call it “fire and motion”. Say something, anything, even appear to be a little crazy, keep people talking about you. Tony Abbott has now become the centre of the parental leave debate without even announcing an actual policy. Everyone else is crowded out. It took him one day. That’s a net gain in mind-share for Tony Abbott. It may not be sustainable as a strategy, but it only has to last to the election. When it stops working partly depends on how people like you and I react to it.
I think I understand what is happening here. Abbott and the coalition know they are going to lose the upcoming election. Abbott also knows that there is considerable power and influence being deployed to limit the extent of that damage. Every day since Abbott took power he has very skillfully worked the media into a veritable frenzy concerning his every move. The latest announcement about parental leave is a case in point. Like Rudd before him, he will do anything to get the headline and if that involves eating grubs in the desert then so be it. It’s clever to a point. As dumb as the great bulk of Australian journos are, there comes a time when competing factors come into play. Murdoch’s drones will tow the line and the ABC puppetts will play devils advocate till they get their desired level of funding and predictably the Fairfax stable will sit on the fence till their masters tell them to pull their heads in. Personally I’ll watch the unfolding drama for the first time on the net. For better or worse at least I’ll be able to see warts and all proper journalism.
@53 – Bob Brown’s soundbite was used in the report on Lateline tonight to suggest that the political world had been turned upside down, the implication being that Abbott’s policy was progressive. I’ve taken some time to set out why it’s quite the opposite, because it’s obvious that this extremely misleading line is going to get massive play in the media.
joe2 @ 51 – it probably hasn’t been highlighted by the media because its exactly how most employer funded paid maternity leave schemes that already exist work and not that surprising. You get paid leave at your current salary. Not really any different from normal holiday leave, sick leave or long service leave.
@joe2
Sorry, I forgot to address your last question. As I said in a previous comment, they don’t have to turn this into actual detailed policy, something that few would actually read. The perception of a “policy direction” remains. My opinion is that this is reinforced by commentators on the left getting all “riled up” about it as if it were policy.
Mark, do you have a source for the Bob Brown quote with context? It’s hard to imagine any context that would change the intent of his statement, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Mark, preferences have traditionally flowed 80 to 85% from Green to Labor, if Abbott could even get closer to say 65/35 that would mean if he were 42 or 43% primary he could possibly win. That sure is interesting and really goes against previous understandings that the Libs need nearly 45% primary to win. Personally I think Labor will find this troubling in so far as they look meek not that they can’t destroy Abbott on policy grounds, or lack thereof. What I also find interesting is that Lindsay Tanner and Tanya Plibersek have seats where if the green finish second, Lib preferences (at least in Tanner’s seat) have traditionally flowed 80% to green instead of Labor. In a seat like Sydney if that were repeated, you could see some very odd results on election night even if Rudd won a big majority. Tanner only won in 2007 with the green coming second 53 to 47 I think.
I don’t think there’ll be much of a shift in Greens preferences, Corin. It’s a more defined vote than that of the Democrats, with a stronger core, and less well attached Greens voters are often poorly attached Labor voters. I don’t see that changing much, particularly in the sorts of inner city electorates where The Greens might fancy their chances. I’ve long thought The Greens could improve their vote in outer suburban seats, targeting a different sort of voter demographic, but that’s really pretty off topic for this thread!
@58 – Sam, I saw it as a grab on the news. He said something like “on ya Tony”.
Saint Furious, your mum’s a legend! Bringing up 5 kids single-handed and taking on more of the little buggers to earn a crust should sport a chestful of medals.
However, it worries me that people are excusing the Budgie Smuggler constantly dribbling shite as honesty and a lack of spin. They seem to have forgotten his role as the foam-flecked attack dog in the Rodent Kingdom.
@Mark
I read elsewhere that he even said, “it’s a good policy”. I’m trying hard to reserve my judgement of that soundbite until I can un-soundbitify it with a bit of context.
I’m hoping that some reporter said “Tony Abbott said X, Y, Z today. What do you think?”. Where X, Y and Z were utter misrepresentations of the policy. Then I only have to be disappointed that Bob fell for it.
I accept that. Watch for local strangness in Sydney though … that is ripe for a strange result on election night. Maybe a nail biter and potentially a green lower house seat. I wonder if they are polling it. they should be in my view.
It’s pretty unequivocal!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2841289.htm
@64 – I wouldn’t be surprised if they were polling a panel from those seats.
This is a great post, Mark. I don’t see why taxpayers (whether they’re individuals or businesses) should pay me 50K in maternity leave if I decide to have a kid – surely welfare should be for people who actually need it?
The implementation of the policy is bad because it sources revenue to pay for early-parenthood from a narrow arbitrary base. It should come from general revenue. But Tony is too shy to impose a tax hike on the general voter.
But the parental leave payment, of itself, is a major good. Too good to be true? – is the important question for the Liberals. However it has shown that the ALP has been piss-weak in this area.
Many. many countries do similar already. The reason that the payment is usually proportionate to forgone wages is that its purpose is to induce a parent to stay at home. The policy intent is for the benefit of the child rather than for the parent.
You have to pay more to get higher earners to actively parent. The policy is not about achieving material equality – it is about enabling parenting of children.
We should support each other when we have kids because that is the time when we need support so we feel able to provide the best possible nurture of new lives. What else is all this work and material wealth for? What is more important than the care of children? It is a mistake to see this as money for grasping adults – the money is for the child so that it can afford a parent. A child who didn’t know they were being born into a world where money was the guiding principle.
And, in harsh terms, the more we spend on children the more we save on adults down the track.
@67 – thanks, Polly.
@68 – wbb, I agree that it’s not about redressing social inequality, but about rewarding care for newly born children. But in a highly differential way, precisely mapped onto how advantaged people already are.
As I said in the post, I think you’ll find that the countries which do provide support at closer to income replacement levels for parental leave (and I’m not aware of *any* that provide 100%, Germany, for instance which has recently made its scheme more generous to increase the fertility rate is at 67%) are not pursuing social policy based on progressive politics and/or feminist concerns.
My view is that it should do both things – facilitate the choice to parent, and redress inequalities.
I just do not support something which differentially advantages those who are already advantaged, and I’d repeat the point that the great majority of women will not benefit from this as might be imagined – for instance the data suggested, the last time I looked at it, that only around 10% of working women earned more than 5% above the median adult wage. That’s from memory, but it remains true that something that reflects the current pattern of earnings (and the current valuation of women’s work) is not generous, nor desirable, in my view.
If you were going to go down this route, the starting point would be real action on removing barriers to equal pay for women.
I’d also reiterate the fact that the Labor policy provides better than 100% income replacement and 100% income replacement for a very large number of women who most need it.
While that may be true, I don’t agree we should. The ability of those who earn more and have more wealth (and often social networks which are of similar nature) to bear the costs associated with parenting is qualitatively as well as quantitatively much more robust than that of low earners with little wealth. I just don’t think public policy should support those who already have it comparatively better.
@wbb “And, in harsh terms, the more we spend on children the more we save on adults down the track.”
Is there any evidence that this applies to the children of high income earners? If there is, then maybe this is a good policy, but that’s a really broad statement to make. (BTW, I support the ALP’s paid parental leave scheme, and think it would be great if it was extended to 6 months, but what Abbott is proposing is that someone who earns up to 150K a year will get their income paid to them for 6 months).
On that, Polly, two points:
(a) As I said in the post, the inclusion of the baby bonus and other payments and transfers means that the ALP’s scheme does cover people for 6 months;
(b) I would be very surprised indeed if educational, health, etc. outcomes for the children of high income earners – and indeed their capacity to pay tax and work in highly skilled jobs – are not very much better than those for children of low income earners. So, to me, the logic of that part of wbb’s argument works against the Coalition regressive scheme and for a targeted, progressive scheme.
Good discussion Mark, I think we’ll see whether economic credibility and policy rationality are simply shattered by greed among many key voters. I do think they’ll end up capping the scheme at $100K but even that will be incredibly generous comapred to Labor’s. I think the other interesting thing is that the commentariat hates it, but I don’t think that will worry Abbott. There is a dangerous disconnect in Australia between good policy and sellable policy. I’m not sure what this is. Well it’s certainly bad policy, regressive policy that assists those on $100K+ incomes … sellable (not sure) – could make the next Newspoll very interesting. I think voters tend to vote for Prime Min isters not individual policies but there is a lot of recent evidence that parties tend to target specific money at certain groups, so my wish may be simply that, false. The hip pocket may be mightier than the credibility gap! That’s the $64K question that the polls coming up could give some indication over.
@74, Corin, sure, it’s certainly out of the John Howard playbook of targeting cash to voter demographics who have a problem with you. Most of which was also crap policy.
Thanks to Mark for articulating the parternalism I reacted to when Tone explained his “change of heart” as “thinking of his daughters”. Right then I realized this was just good old self-interest of the playground in-crowd, of course it wouldn’t be the same for the rest of us.
He wasn’t convincing when asked on Lateline how he expected business to pay for it. I suspect he’s not convincing many in the partyroom for unilaterally proposing it either. As he rambled on, I lost focus and stared at those ears….and the following dismal blank verse appeared, seemingly as a precis of the story:
Parental Blank Leave
An investment in human capital,
Thinner than a pair of bike shorts
It’s better to seek forgiveness than ask permission:
There is no magic pudding
If we look after mothers in the workforce, we’ll have more kids
How do we become our best selves as people?
Orthodox notions of the right order of things,
There is no magic pudding
The standard liberal-conservative predilections,
They’re the people who can best bear it
This was something that I put in my book:
There is no magic pudding
All hat and no cowboy
All tip and no iceberg
Bob Brown is having a joke, watch the smile playing around his mouth when he says “onya Tony”.
The context is that he thinks both parties have not done enough for women, and a bidding war is fun to watch from the sidelines. He knows its going nowhere.
Abbott’s “policy” is dead in the water already. The news cycle has moved on, and everyone feels slightly grubby.
@ 77 Yep Grace: people need to see the video of Bob Brown’s doorstop to get the joke.
Of course, the media gallery morons reported it as straight.
When I saw BB talking, I thought he was having a lend of us and I suspect I’ll be proved right. BB also probably knew that by “endorsing” the non-policy as Greens leader, he was giving it the kiss of death and burying it right there: hence the smile.
If this last 24 hours of non-policy were clever, you could call it farce. As it stands now, it’s just bad street theatre.
@ewe2
Love the pome, just a quick nitpick – methinks the mot juste you seek in the penultimate line is “all hat and no cattle”.
I don’t have the expertise on paid parental leave to help here but given there’s speculation on what Bob Brown said, I thought Mark and others might find these links helpful:
Greens Bil on paid parental leave
and media release yesterday
I’d be keen to hear what people think of the Greens’ bill on parental leave.
and yes at times Bob is very dry and droll to the point that many miss the joke but I make no assumptions here!
If my memory serves me well, tigtog, Abbott actually bungled that line in pretty much the manner ewe2 expressed it. Mind you, my mind often does not serve me well and it might have been someone else who rooned that lovely expression.
@79 tigtog
I’ll have to explain something which may ruin the poem, but anyways:
That line is something Abbott actually said in reference to Rudd, in fact the entire poem (obviously not the last line) is made up from two Lateline reports, the first stanza is mostly from this report, the rest entirely from phrases during his interview with Leigh Sales.
I don’t know whether Tony deliberately set out to echo Keating’s phrase but I thought it blatant enough to put the two together.
bingo!
Core business of this blog indeed Mark (@46) but never in the non core promise category.
@ewe2 and joe2 (are you 2 related?)
That explains it then – it was Tones that bungled the classic sledge against city slickers kitted out like Wild West legends. In which case the pome is even more marvellous, ewe2.
It is pointless debating the details of this Abbott device. Because that is all it is, a political device. This is the replay of the Labour “gold card for seniors” thing. Howard was on the back foot, had nothing to counter Labour’s offer for health care for the elderly so they came up with a counter offer to sway the grey vote, then 3 months after the election was won Abbott was on ABC justify why Howard had withdrawn the election promise. His words were “well we didn’t know about the costing blowout”, then 3 sentences later it was “well we did know about the costing blowout, but we have decided to not spend the money on the elderly anyway”. That is the integrity level of this guy. This man has all of the sincerity and integrity of a bad African head of state. God save the Governor General, for nothing will save the Australian people, should Tony Abbott become Prime Minister.
tigtog we aren’t related, and thanks
Don’t you think it’s just weird that a Liberal opposition leader would seek to mimic a former Labor PM? God help him if that was a scriptwriter’s bright idea, but I doubt it. Doubly ironic from the bushwacked LOOP.
Abbott is trying to turn the Liberal Party into the DLP. We’ve have had virgins (hooray!), homosexuals (boo!), getting mums to stay at home where they belong (not so cleverly disguised as helping working mothers) and – not least – antipathy to big business.
It’s like he’s the resurrection of Bartholomew Augustine Santamaria.
Next: assistance to small farmers.
Mark and I have demonstrated that pluralism is alive and well at LP. Yay!
Julia Perry has another take on the issue at the SMH.
Some interesting comments by noted feminist intellectuals Marian Baird and Barbara Pocock. Is antyone going to seriously suggest that Drs. Baird and Pocock have been sucked in by the patriarchal DLP plot?
Paul, motives matter. Are you going to seriously suggest that Abbott has the same motives as feminists?
No, Sam, no more than I would seriously suggest that Graham Richardson had the same motivations as environmentalists when he was Federal Environment Minister.
Meanwhile, Leslie Cannold is making more sense than just about anyone in today’s Age.
Leslie Cannold makes some valid points, but ignores (as does just about everyone else) the inequity at the core of this proposal. If I hear one more commentator repeat the half truth that this proposal is more generous than the government’s I’ll….
It’s a measure of the depths to which public discourse has sunk in this country that so many can ignore the bleedin’ obvious, presumably because they’re blinded by a bucketload of money.
At this stage it would help to clarify the discussion if people could indicate whether they disagree with the general principle of wage replacement in parental leave schemes, as advocated by Julia Perry, Marian Baird and Barbara Pocock, and if they don’t disagree with the general principle, to outline (as Mark has done in the opening post) their specific reasons for arguing that Abbott’s proposal is unfair.
The poor will be always with us and that’s what we are planning for, adrian.
I agree with wbb @68,@69.
Also we’ve talked about unintended consequences of policy here not so long ago. A couple that I can think of a having a flat rate low maternity leave payment:
- Reinforces the view that looking after babies is of low value
- Because of the gender pay differences financially encourages mothers to be the primary carer of children rather than the fathers as the family income will drop less. This in turn creates even a larger gap, especially for subsequent children when the mother’s wage is likely to be even lower.
Its also been discussed previously on this blog that at least some component of maternity leave is for physical recovery. In this case how is it different from sick-leave? Should sick leave benefits also be a flat rate rather based on need rather than based on your salary?
As usual, Leslie Cannold nails it.
Yes, joe2, the more the better.
And of course some babies are worth more than others.
The reasons that Abbott’s proposal is unfair are:
1. It pays more money to those who are already advantaged by earning a high income.
2. It pays less money to those who have lower incomes and therefore need more assistance.
3. It will result in higher costs as business pass on their added costs, resulting in more inequity as those hardest hit by these added costs will be those on lower incomes.
Really, I don’t give a stuff if Germaine herself supports this policy – it’a a crock of shit, and anyone who can’t see these basic inequities isn’t looking or doesn’t care as long as the money flows.
Just remember, in Tone world some babies are worth more than others.
Equal pay for equal work, Paul. Why should one parent be paid far, far, more for their child raising skills than others?
It is unfair and discriminatory because regardless of who appears to be making the payment- employer or government- we are all footing the bill by taxation or the increased expense of goods and services.
Specifically, the babies of his daughters. And his friends and family and their daughters and sons.
Joe2, it’s not supposed to be a payment for child raising skills, it’s supposed to be an employment benefit, and the principle of wage replacement means that those people who become parents, whatever their income level, aren’t worse off relative to someone doing the same job who doesn’t become a parent.
I think part of what we’re arguing about here involves different dimensions of equity: equity between parents and non-parents in otherwise similar employment situations, and equity (or less inequity) between people in different employment situations with greatly differing wages and conditions. I think we should be trying to find ways to optimise both these dimensions of equity rather than emphasising one at the expense of the other.
I am opposed to the principle of general wage replacement for parenthood. So long as resources are scarce, and by definition they are, then it ought to be needs based and resource-limited.
It’s clear that a certain minimum is required, and minimum wage is unreasonably meagre. Perhaps pro-rata 40k at current rates would be OK, though I’d lean to having part of this as goods in kind — supply of baby-related consumables, access to community nursing support and domestic relief — that sort of thing.
Paul @ 94 – I think if its a government funded scheme then it should probably be a flat rate needs based, means tested payment. If its an employer funded scheme then it should be approached the same way as other employment benefits and wage based. I think many (most?) maternity leave schemes around the world are wage based rather than a flat rate payment.
Helen @ 97 – great article! I know quite a few men out there who would love to take parental leave, but the way it is structured makes its quite difficult (almost impossible to share parental leave) and there are often quite strong financial disincentives for the family as whole to do so.
I’m against a general wage replacement in principle, until we get a social security system that actively supports the poorest and most marginalised people. I fully support parental leave, but there are questions of fairness involved, eg, why should lowly paid couples, or singles who choose not to have children have to financially support extremely prosperous people in their choice to have children?
Really, I don’t give a stuff if Germaine herself supports this policy
[Temporary OT]
Could people please not do this thing of making GG a kind of Boss of the Hivemind of feminism or something. As you see from the GG and the monthly thread, most of us femmos love her some of the time and eyeroll at other times. We do not support any policy En Masse and we certainly don’t support any policy or any thing because Germaine does. GG is a larrikin and a particular activist who was and is important in certain ways. There are many prominent feminists who are more useful than GG when it comes to day to day, bread and butter policy matters. That isn’t GG’s role.
Thank you. That is all.
[Back on topic]
Chris @103 – I see others beat me to it with the Leslie Cannold article – should read the whole thread before I post!
“I think we should be trying to find ways to optimise both these dimensions of equity rather than emphasising one at the expense of the other.”
For sure Paul. Trouble is, while the hands are raised high with lots of cheering and waving in one dimension the other never gets a look in.
Maybe that’s because the people missing out in schemes such as this have no influence, and are never listened to, unlike those already advantaged souls who making sure they are first in this queue.
“equity between parents and non-parents in otherwise similar employment situations”
There is one way in the employment situation is not similar, and that is that the parent who is taking time off to look after a child is not working (which is not to say that kids aren’t hard work, but they are not working for their employer).
Of course employers might choose to pay very generous parental leave, but that it is a decision they make to attract and retain staff, for the good of the organisation. It has nothing to do with equity.
As much as it’s a choice, Fine. And I don’t think it follows.
I’m a non-parent and have no immediate plans to become one, but I’m happy—more than happy—for funds levied through my taxes to pay for things like public and community childcare, baby health clinics, public obstetric health care, not to mention primary and secondary education, all of which support the lifestyle of potentially very rich parents without means testing. The local comprehensive isn’t going to turn away little Meredith or Henry just because their parents are barristers.
And though obviously I’d be happier for employers to contribute directly rather than through the tax system—why means test parental leave?
Let’s cut to the chase. As good social democrats/socialists/radical democrats/feminists/Greens/Trots/other (please indicate) we all basically believe wages should be more equal, the tax system should be more redistributive and welfare provision should be more generous to those in greatest need, and what is exercising our minds here is what would constitute the most equitable system of paid parental leave in present circumstances which are quite some way from these ideals of equity.
Liam, I’m more than happy to pay for all of this too. But I’m doing allright financially. I’m looking more at people who are really struggling themselves specifically, in relation to income replacement, which is different to the Labor Party’s scheme. It might seem hard when you’re on a minimum wage to see your taxes supporting people on six figures.
Of course, Paul, but what I’d argue as
social democrats/socialists/radical democrats/feminists/Greens/Trots/other (please indicate)good shopping-listists don’t believe in is refusing to support welfare provision X until welfare provision Y is provided for, or until X and Y are funded in certain equitable ways.My reading is that 26 weeks at 100% replacement (even with a ceiling) would make this the most generous maternity leave scheme in the OECD. However other countries also have paid parental leave and paternity leave, so if you factor these in this scheme if introduced would be about the 15th most generous in the OECD.
Figures are available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html
under indicator PF7
Strictly speaking the proposal is not regressive, since it simply replicates the existing wage distribution. Personally, I would only use the term regressive if the proposal was actually more unequal than existing wages – but it is definitely not progressive.
The government scheme in contrast is actually highly redistributive – this is because the payment is at the full-time equivalent of the minimum wage. As a result, women who work part-time at low wages can actually get replacement rates over 100% from the government proposal. This is likely to also benefit women who already have a child and are working part-time, since women are more likely to be working full-time before the birth of their first child.
Some targeting towards lower paid, part-time and casual female workers seems justified to me since better paid women are more likely to already have paid maternity leave provided by their employers (although probably not for 26 weeks). In this sense, the government scheme appears more likely to fill existing gaps in coverage – including for the self-employed.
I also see no reason why lone parents would be ineligible for the government scheme – according to DEEWR ” To be eligible for the PPL scheme, the primary carer (usually the mother) must be in paid work and have:
• been engaged in work continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months prior to
the expected birth or adoption of the child; and
• undertaken at least 330 hours of paid work in the 10 month period (an
average of around one day of paid work a week).”
So if a sole parent has been working for at least one day a week for at least 10 months then they should be eligible. It also covers adoption .
Minor point for the site admins …
In the pointers to the “tag archive” above one reads ” [...] ideologly, ideology”
I assume that someone mistyped here and ideologly would be redundant if it were typed as intended.
Fine, as I used to argue when my coworkers and I did earn a minimum wage, there was no such thing as “our taxes”; as represented by the tax refund we got each year.
I also (though I’m sympathetic to it as a high-earning childless person) don’t accept the argument that singles and childless couples should not subsidise the childrearing choices of others. Children are a public good, as much the reproductive freedom to be a parent is a right.
I can’t understand why middle class welfare was criticised (correctly) when it became Howard’s chief means of re-election, but in this case it seems to be OK beacuse we need to encourage the wealthy to have children or whatever.
Except Liam, that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m talking about this specific policy of income replacement, not parental leave in general.
Liam #112, good point. Often in debates like this we see positions emerge which boil down to the argument that, because we can’t help everybody, in the interests of equity and fairness we must refrain from helping anybody.
Oh yeah, income replacement is a fundamentally inequitable measure, definitely. The employer should pay or not at all.
Thanks Peter Whiteford – that’s as good a summary as I’ve seen.
“The employer should pay or not at all.”
Trouble is, if they are generous the public cop that in increased prices anyway.
Helen@105 – Fair cop guv – it was my clumsy way of trying to make a point.
Paul@118 – Can you please point out where anyone on this thread has made that point? I must have missed something.
Adrian #122, nobody on this thread has made that point and I hope nobody on this thread thinks I’ve imputed such a view to them. I was referring to debates in other forums at other times where such a point has emerged.
Meanwhile, here’s another example of something which often impinges on debates like this. Why on earth is it necessary or important to mention that the woman is a “mother-of-one”, and would a father of one who had a similar experience have his parental status reported in the story?
Maternity Town Ride
Dog whistle blowing, makes a sleepy noise,
Underneath their mortgages go all the girls and boys.
Chorus:
Umming, Urring, Ahhhhing, Anything I can say,
All bound for Electiontown, many months away.
Sloppy Joe at the engine, Julie stares at the bell,
Barnaby swings the lantern, to show that the debt is well.
Chorus
Maybe we are bullshitting where our train will ride;
All the little working families are warm and snug inside.
Chorus
Somewhere there is hypocrisy, Business will have to pay,
Somewhere there is Electiontown, many months away.
Chorus
Apologies to “The Seekers”
Abbott writes an opinion piece calling on the Coalition to pass the Labor’s ETS, then opposes it.
He said a paid maternity leave scheme would happen over the Howard Government’s “dead body”. Now he wants to spend billions on one – by the way, where is the right-wing commentariat screaming about what billions of dollars of extra purchasing power pumped into the economy would do to interest rates and home prices? His plan would be a massive “cash splash” that is never phased out, regardless of the economic cycle.
One week he’s against “big government”, the next he’s put out a massive new big government policy.
He said he would, unlike Malcolm Turnbull, be a leader that consults his colleagues. But they had to find out about the maternity scheme in the media.
Abbott has described himself as a “weathervane”. Weathervanes tend to stick in the one place longer. Some “straight-talker”. How can right-wingers here defend this clown?
And do not forget that he is likely to vote down the government’s parental leave plan because his is so much more “generous”[vomits in bucket].
Essentially, he get’s his real way which was, all along, no leave scheme over his or parties dead body.
Yes, vote down the government plan with the excuse that theirs is much more “generous”, then in the unlikely event that he actually gets into power, “oh sorry the budgetary position/economy/planetary alignment of the stars/my daughters’ attitudes have changed and we can no longer afford it”.
But hey, we can console ourselves that the fact that this was discussed at all was a great victory for feminism.
Joe2 #127, I think Abbott’s speech this week has maximised the political damage he is likely to do himself and the Coalition if he attempts such a canard in an election year. If he really did make his statement on Monday with the intention of holding it out as a pretext to vote down any parental leave scheme whatsoever in the Senate, he would be an even crazier and shabbier piece of work than his most severe critics could imagine.
I said a day or two ago this was a con job. Now, as joe2 points out, we can fdinally see its full extent. It has been manufactured for the sole reason of giving Abbott and the Liberal Party an excuse to vote against Labor’s package. It is now absolutely clear what Abbott has done is to make the non-core promise to end non-core promises.
If I was of a conspiratorial frame of mind (which, as you all know, I’m not) I’d be thinking Abbott had stitched up a deal with big business before his announcement, telling them “Not to worry, I’t's never going to happen.” Hence the soundless fart of business protests, and the seamless silence from the majority of his uninformed colleagues.
True Adrian – by why is that? Because we have a Labor Government. With Labor in government we’re at least discussing weighty issues like global warming, efficient funding of hospitals, paid maternity schemes.
If Howard was still in power we’d be discussing the latest sleazy wedge tactic.
And in’t it interesting that having called the ETS, which isn’t a tax a “great big new tax”, Sharman Stone says we call the levy, which is exactly a tax “an investment in human capital”. Sorry Sharman but a levy causes cash to flow in exactly the opposite direction to an investment but exactly the same way as a tax — i.e. to the state. Breathtaking.
Even more interesting is that in covering the gap in the budget caused by the rejection of proposals to increase the medicare levy on high income earners, that Peter Dutton invited the government to introduce a great big new tax on cigarettes? So again, apparently, new taxes are OK, providing the beneficiaries are mainly upper income earners. Of course Dutton, on the Sharman Stone principle should say “we don’t call it a tax. We call it an investment in the bodily capital remediation”.
It sure looks like that Paul and I would say Tony has played quite a few for suckers, including Bob Brown.
Update: I’ve set out my reasons for opposing Abbott’s plan at greater length in the ABC’s The Drum this morning.
@125 Excellent, cybercynic. Some may not have noticed the little sting in the tail of Tony’s interview last night where he claimed workers were worse off under Rudd. Aspiration, fear, aspiration, fear. I resent being expected to be a good little Pavlovian, and the parental leave is another meaningless dogbiscuit being proffered.
Excellent article, Mark.
Paul, all you need to do is imagine the outcry from big business and their media representatives if this had been Labor policy.
Thanks, adrian.
Update: I’ve put up a links post to some of the reaction to Abbott’s plan.
“Even more interesting is that in covering the gap in the budget caused by the rejection of proposals to increase the medicare levy on high income earners, that Peter Dutton invited the government to introduce a great big new tax on cigarettes? So again, apparently, new taxes are OK, providing the beneficiaries are mainly upper income earners.”
… and they can blame Labor for the increase. Which they would, even if the suggestion was theirs in the first place.
Personally of course I’d be totally OK with a tax increase on tobacco products and alcohol too, as I’ve suggested in the past, given suitable hypothecation rules for the revenue raised.
Can Abbott really get away with rejecting the ALP’s proposal for paid parental leave after this? If this bill passes it will being change almost immediately. Whatever the credibility of Abbott’s proposal it still depends on his winning an election and preparing new legislation. There’d be nothing to stop him if his party and the people are behind him from amending a new Labor Act, changing its funding source to the tax on big business, extending it to 26 weeks and rewarding the already wealthy with even more cash in hand.
Julia Perry sums up “The government’s promise to scrap the baby bonus and bring in an entitlement equivalent to 18 weeks parental leave at the minimum wage from January is a good start. Employers and the opposition need to pass that measure as the foundation for Abbott’s proposed scheme.”
Perhaps Bob Brown can keep a straight face long enough to negotiate with the Coalition on an amendment to the current bill which makes it clear that this is an interim measure requiring urgent action now pending enhancement by the Coalition and the Greens after the coming election.
Patricia, I agree, and I think one of the reasons for the dismay in the Coalition party room could be that Abbott’s statement has created expectations which will be dashed if the Coalition takes any course in the Senate other than trying to improve Labor’s scheme through amendments but voting for it if those amendments don’t get up.
It’s funny to read in The Australian – which usually prints any utterance from big business types as incontrovertible truth, especially when it comes to unions – that suddenly big business isn’t always right. They were wrong when they said Keating’s compulsory super would make Australia uncompetitive. In fact, big business has joined unions, environmental groups, teachers, as just another “vested interest”, no longer the source of civilization and enlightenment.
Watching the contortions of Howard’s Praetorian Guard is just delicious.
Interestingly, there’s been some comment that internal Liberal polling might be the reason for this. Those of us who said Abbott has a problem with women might not be wrong after all. Most women probably don’t have much time for his thuggish rhetoric….to say nothing about prancing around in spandex bike shorts.
My money’s on the Libs losing big and doing atrociously among women – especially women under 40.
….sorry for previous scrappy post.
As of today the Libs (and sundry independents) are declaring “opposition” to passing the legislatiuon that would deliver the 18 week Maternity Leave payments.
They propose in its place to put up legislation in the Senate that relates to the “26 weeks Maternity Leave” proposal.
There is just a small problem with this strategy – it will not pass the House of Reps and therefore cannot become legislation. It is not possible to govern from the Senate.
Intended or otherwise this could lead to a position where no legislation is passed – hence a truely hung Parliament.
If as a result, a general election is called, it would be not a normal double dissolution but more like a usurpation of the process of government.
So while no supply bill is being blocked and the government is not running out of capacity to pay its employees, it may well be in a position where it is unable to progress its agenda for reform or to generate new sources of income (tax).
Then a call to those who elected the current governemnt and those who want to retain the essence of the parliamentary and legislative process (would these people be true Conservatives) would be in order.
It would be an interesting election where the ALP is calling on not only those who support it but those who are actually Conservative in their views. It could represent the opposition as radical usurpers who wage war against the process of democratic parliamentary government.
If the Senate is used to prevent the government from doing its job, there could be a solid argument made to direct support away from independents who may otherwise end in positions of control (Harradine).
I can see past Prime Ministers being asked their views and all but Howard opting for a conservation of the democratic parliamentary process. Look at NSW, the public may not like the current Government but they have to wait their time to cast their ballots and make any change that results.