Peter Costello’s written a bit of a spray about Tony Abbott’s parental leave scheme in The Age. Actually quite an amusing read.
I don’t know if The Great Pretender’s distaste will have that much impact in the Coalition ranks, but you’d have thought there’d be enough other reasons for Liberals to think twice about the wisdom of the Abbott experiment.
It’s been widely observed that Abbott’s business impost disables his ‘Great New Tax On Everything’ line, because – unlike Labor’s ETS, which hands out money to big business – it probably would be, as large companies pass on the tax to consumers.
I haven’t noticed anyone pointing out that the parental leave plan also contradicts the theme Abbott was developing against Rudd – that Rudd’s announcements were over ambitious and it was better to go with more incremental, smaller scale policy. This was the political logic of the ‘Direct Action’ slogan, and to my mind, it’s not a bad line of attack. But it can hardly be credibly pushed when, as Costello says, Abbott has taken the ‘my policy’s bigger than your policy’ road.
Then, there’s the fact that this ego driven strategy on Abbott’s part shifts the focus from the government back on to his own credentials and capability to be Prime Minister, which is pretty dumb opposition politics at this stage of the game. After the insulation debacle, the Liberals should have been reiterating their story about the government’s policy woes. Instead, they’re defending their own policy. Not smart.
I like Costello’s line about Abbott’s being like Crocodile Dundee (“that’s not a maternity leave scheme. This is a maternity leave scheme!”). I wonder if he thought of it himself.
On the politics, we’ve got Attila the Nun on the Catholic Right attacking the policy for being implicitly hostile to stay at home mothers (what about that, Christopher Pearson?) and now Marlon Costello (“I coulda been a contender”*) for saying it’s the thin end of the edge towards high tax Sweden.
Who of importance, outside the Liberal Party, other than Bob Brown, admits to liking the policy?
* Full quote: “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody instead of a bum, which is what I am.”
Oh noes! The LP Hive Mind has got to Peter Costello as well! Is there no end to teh Left’s dirty tricks?
Or was The Age’s Editor just itching to revive their ‘Abbott & Costello’ quips from obsolescence?
Well Sarah Hanson-Young also likes the policy.
The highlight of today was undoubtedly Wilson Tuckey at a Parliament House doorstop telling Peter Costello to “keep his trap shut”. I just hope that Malcolm Turnbull wasn’t eating, drinking or driving a car when he heard that.
Wilson Tuckey telling someone to keep their trap shut is like a funnel web spider telling someone to stop being so poisonous.
Sarah Hanson-Young is nobody of importance.
Sam #1, I’ve put in a link to Attila the Nun denouncing Abbott as a heretic and schismatic.
This is the Libtards under Abbott, we’re talking about here, Mark.
I heard The Parrot in high gear this morning while buying some ice. He is a wanker par excellence.
I really think it’s time to trot out Abbott’s past history to remind people what sort of person is being pushed by the likes of Jones etc.
I’ve often suspected, Mercurius, that it’s even worse than that. Think of the furious lawyerly quibbling Costello is known for. Has anyone seen Katz and Costello in the same room?
And likewise Mark, once some policy objective acquires, in the mind of the government of the day “motherhood status” isn’t it obvious that big business should be levied? Could the coalition ever oppose this in principle?
Indeed, if people think that getting GHGs down involves a charge on someone, shouldn’t big business pay it?. Shouldn’t they be levied so the government can dole out cash to people hurt by rising prices associated with a carbon tax?
The disturbing thing about Angela Shanahan’s contribution to the debate is that she seems to be obliquely agreeing with me. This is a worry.
But Angela Shanahan’s husband has found that Abbott has Rudd spooked. Its in the polling data!
I see no contradiction here:
“But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:”
Matthew 6:3, KJV.
Think: “Jesuit Box”, just don’t mention it.
It is after all a “broad church”.
That speech says so much about the empty heart of the liberal party. I love this:
So this is the heart of liberal policy? Tax-fetishism? Never increase taxes? They don’t have anything better or bigger to hang their political activism on than… “I can honestly say I have never heard a speech in favour of higher tax”?
Also, I love the site of Peter Costello arguing against “Private benefits being socialised”. I’m sure the Liberals have never presided over a policy that socialised private benefits under his leadership… and wasn’t it him who suggested we should have 3 babies, one for mum, one for dad and one for the country – and then paid the breeders to do it?
Ah, it’s a joy to watch the Liberals eating their own children on national media.
Note the contradiction in a long line of Coalition contradictions.
When in power for 11½ years Costello was never wrong, yet now he is clearly wrong according to the opposition’s response to Costello’s spray.
Also I note that Costello had to explain his Crocodile Dundee joke. He truly is a humourless little prat isn’t he?
And Costello’s language is moronic drivel. Private benefits stop being private if they are socialised. What is socialised under Abbott’s scheme is the funding of those private benefits. The government’s schem does this too of course, but the difference is that the transfer payment system is less regressive since the payers will reflect the tax system rather than the pool of people onto whom the levied corporations pass their costs and the total transfer will be smaller.
True – but the employer loses any advantage they might have gained in recruiting and keeping staff from operating a private parental leave scheme where there is no public alternative. It’s a very H R Nicholls Society objection to Abbott’s plan.
Peter Costello’s ‘expert’ opinion is not what it seems.
Intelligent fellow
Peter Costello.
Theres nothing oblique
In this fine critique.
He’s set in his sights
Both left and the right.
Yet the parent leave tax
He dislikes to the max.
He says it’s obscene.
It makes him see green!
Hey, don’t you mean red?
No, green’s what he said.
But it isn’t Bob Brown
Who’s making him frown.
Like all of you fellas
He can’t see he’s jealous.
His very own G.S.T.
Rudd is using you see.
It’s top hatted Abbott
With his magic white rabbit
Out there in the spotlight
He knows is just not right.
So his ‘expert’ surveying
Is unconsciously saying
“Surely you all now agree -
It should have been me!”
I put a spell on him but I never thought it would work this well.
I can’t for the life of me see why taxpayers on ordinary incomes should have to subsidize the full income of someone on a six-figure salary, as under Abbott’s maternity leave scheme.
There was once a time in Australian politics – before the election of the Howard Government – when it was seen as the role of governemnt to reduce, not entrench and widen, inequality.
It’s always fun when Libs dump on their own in retirement (it seems a compulsion with Tories), but Costello really is a know-it-all misery guts.
The other stupid thing about the Abbott proposal – and what probably riles the business groups as much as the tax – is that for a lot of women on higher incomes, their employer would offer a reasonably good maternity leave package. Basically, with unemployment likely to be at 5% for some time, which means competition for talent, a lot of employers would offer a reasonably good parental leave package as a way of keeping core staff.
Not all women have access to this, but a lot of those who would be at the top end of the Abbott offer might. If you put a compulsory tax levy on these employers, they are simply going to withdraw their own parental leave packages and say its the government’s job. As a result, the scheme could end up costing a lot more than Abbott has estimated.
Wayne Swan was enjoying himself today, pointing out that Abbott is the only person who’s ever got Keating and Costello to agree with each other.
DI (nr) That is remarkable, three (ex)treasurers in concordance, they must have a point. I wonder what the shadow treasurers thoughts are.
Check out this pearler from Joyce:
First time he’s ever said anything sensible!
In this morning’s press, Miranda Devine lines up with The Monk and Bill Muehlenberg sides with The Nun as the schism widens.
It could be a Sydney-Melbourne thing.
Sam, that’s also occurred to me!
Ootz, I reckon Hockey’ll be thinking about his chances post-election. After all, the leadership of the opposition will be wide open.
Alternatively, he might be thinking, “Christ on a bike, Tony. Just STFU.”
Everything Hockey has done this year has been about steering as far away from these sorts of topics as possible. He has the leadership after the 2010 election loss in the bag unless he is seen to be too overtly aligned towards Turnbull or Costello. The Minchinites can’t really deny it to him now.
Whether its worth having is a different question.
“The Minchinites can’t really deny it to him now.”
Of course they can. Watch them push for Kevin Andrews.
Damn, I forgot about the shop front dummy. Bad luck, Joe.
Sensational, Sam! That’d be good for another 6 years in the political wilderness.
After all, Andrews is kind of like Tony Abbott, only without the charm and intelligence.
And after Andrews, Sophie Mirabella. After her, Alex Hawke.
If we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, Sam, there’s also Bishop. (Bronwyn, not Botox Barbie. Although … )
Terry @20: ” If you put a compulsory tax levy on these employers, they are simply going to withdraw their own parental leave packages and say its the government’s job. As a result, the scheme could end up costing a lot more than Abbott has estimated.”
On the other hand, consider what might happen if the government implements a neutral parenting policy, where parental leave is the same for all.
Firstly, no accusations of bigger handouts from everyone’s taxes to wealthy people.
Secondly, those employers of valuable men and women will probably top up their parental leave, as a sweetener to retain their loyalty at the end of the leave.
This is what happened in Norway, for both the men on Pappa-leave, and the women on Mama-leave. The top-up was at the discretion of the company, but seemed to be widely practiced.