At any rate, as Possum observes, Labor’s lead in today’s poll is its best so far this year.

I think we can also see that Abbott’s parental leave announcement has been viewed very much through the prism of the parties’ images – which in themselves are composites of longstanding perceptions of party strengths and weaknesses, how the parties relate to social cleavages, and less long term assessments of competence and direction in office or in opposition. Policy tends to be mediated through this prism, rather than being an independent variable in its own right. In other words, few policy announcements – in and of themselves – are likely to be political game changers.

It’s useful, then, to counterpose two tables from Essential Report’s research [courtesy of Possum]:

As Possum also observes, the crunch is in the cross-tabs:

Among Labor voters, 61% supported the Government’s scheme and 15% supported the Opposition’s. However, only 37% of Coalition voters supported the Opposition’s scheme – 20% supported the Government scheme and 35% supported neither.

“Too good to be true” with a chaser of “That’s not very Liberal” seems to be the public call here with Abbott’s PPL.

All that’s aside from the merits of the policy announcement, of which I continue to hold an unfavourable opinion.

There’s another story about one possible weakness for Labor in this research, going by the moniker of KRudd. But that deserves a post of its own, which I’ll duly provide tomorrow.

Recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Australian women earned just 82.5% of the average male rate of pay across the country in 2009. On average, a female worker would have earned more in 1985 — and will be $1 million worse off over their lifetimes than their dads, brothers and partners.

That rather understates the size of the problem, because that differential refers to full time earnings, and 57% of women in work were full time, with 43% being part time or casual in 2009. As the recent House of Representatives Standing Committee Report on Equal Pay, Making It Fair, observed:

In August 2007, the average mean earning from all jobs for women was $680 per week (compared to $1022 for male employees) partly reflecting women’s greater participation in part time employment. On a comparison of full time employment earnings, women on average earned $910 per week and men earned $1131 weekly.

The point I’ve been making in my commentary and analysis of the Abbott parental leave plan is that there seems to be a perception that women in the workforce are much better off than they actually are. Otherwise it would be impossible to conclude that income replacement was ‘generous’ or ‘fair’. My argument has been that the Coalition’s approach would further entrench existing inequalities. In that context, it was interesting to note the comments from Eric Abetz on the 7.30 Report tonight. Abetz was responding to a case which starts tomorrow in Fair Work Australia seeking to revalue the work performed (very largely by women) in the community sector.

To say that Abetz was hardly filled with enthusiasm for a case which would raise women’s wages by around $100 a week would be an understatement. Pay equity was a principle no one would disagree with, he observed, but it appears that in practice, it’s never the right time to do anything about it.

This, of course, is the whole problem. The principle was accepted in Australian law in 1972, but the practice has lagged behind, and is now trending backwards.

The method by which the ACTU, the ASU, and the Equal Pay Alliance are proceeding is by a test case based on principles of work value. The Coalition removed the power of FWA’s predecessor, the AIRC, to hear such cases, opposes anything but minimal safety net awards, and rejects the principle of industrial tribunals determining pay rates by an assessment of the skills and values worked.

So, if they were still in government, this campaign could not succeed. And it they return to government, it will not succeed. The Labor government, by contrast, is intervening in the case in support of the union position, and Julia Gillard made a cogent argument as to the timeliness of properly valuing community sector workers’ skills and experience tonight.

The audacity, and gross hypocrisy, of the claim that the Coalition cares about working women has been exposed for what it is, only two days after Tony Abbott’s IWD speech.

Elsewhere: Useful background and context at Business Spectator.

Some Coalition MPs have suggested that this plan came about so suddenly because Abbott had become privy to private party polling.

I strongly suspect that the Labor Party might have had a bit of a turnaround – perhaps related to the National Curriculum 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 Ministers 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.

Meanwhile, whether or not Abbott makes health a focus of his parliamentary attack, the Premiers continue to ponder the National Health and Hospitals Network. Kevin Rudd has wrought his own ambush, confident that there’s no political skin to be lost picking a fight with the states on this battleground. But that doesn’t mean that some of the Premiers haven’t been posing some good questions – interestingly, probably more from Kristina Kenneally than John Brumby.

And while the headline politics might have been the primary focus of media attention, some good work continues to be done on analysing the policy itself. I’ve posted some salient links over the fold.

Health academic James Gillespie authored a comprehensive piece for Inside Story, while the Centre for Policy Development has a veritable plethora of analysis: John Menadue on governance, Ian McAuley on what the PM still needs to tell us, Fiona Armstrong on the meaning or meanings of ‘local’, and Jennifer Doggett on out of pocket expenses.

There’s more than enough fodder for a very healthy debate on Rudd’s initiative.

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.

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.

LIZ HAYES: Homosexuality? How do you feel about that?

TONY ABBOTT: I’d probably I feel a bit threatened…

LIZ HAYES: I’m not asking if it’s a personal choice of yours.

TONY ABBOTT: ..as so many people.

LIZ HAYES: When you say ‘threatened’?

TONY ABBOTT: Again, Liz, look, it’s a fact of life and I try to treat people as people and not put them in pigeonholes.

Yes, don’t ask, don’t tell. Stay in the closet. It’s a private thing. Don’t ask for those pesky ‘rights’ or be too ‘queer’. And Tone won’t get scared.

I’m not surprised, given the way he lives his (ultra)masculinity, that Abbott literally is homo-phobic. Perhaps he could take up this offer?

Corey Irlam, spokesperson for Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) will today write to Abbott, inviting him to meet with ordinary gays and lesbian people to help overcome his self-confessed sense of “threat” about homosexuality.

“We hope Mr Abbott will take up our invitation so he can overcome feeling threatened by homosexuality”, Mr Irlam said in a statement.

“Mr Abbott can pick any place he feels safe and we’ll invite ordinary members of the gay and lesbian community to come and talk with him to show him he has nothing to fear from us.”

Via Trevor Cook. I agree, as with the rest of Tony’s fascinating moral journey, it should be televised.

That would be *authentic*.

Update: Tone will probs say, as with some of his previous comments, that he was just answering the questions. Sorrow At Sills Bend has more on his ‘accidental’ oversharing, and some questions that could be posed to Abbott.

Or has he?

That’s the impression given on the tv news tonight, but a reading of Abbott’s actual speech shows that it’s not a policy announcement.

Rather, Abbott is determined to show that a Liberal government would:

let people know what it has in mind well before positions are finalized because the job of government is to make the best decisions, not to pretend to have all the answers from the beginning.

So, what’s been reported is actually not firm, and is supposed to be some sort of example of Abbott’s idea of the policy making process, to provide a point of contrast with what he alleges the Labor government’s approach to policy to be. This is something he has in mind, rather than an announcement, and it will be subject to consultation and further reflection, and so on. It will be interesting to see if this is the way it’s reported, and whether all the qualifications, musing and speculation in his speech make it into the papers.

I rather doubt that the Liberal Party, not traditionally known for imposing “special levies” on the top end of town, will actually take this funding mechanism to the election. Abbott’s rhetoric is very much a bob each way, with a few sops thrown out to those who might be sceptical about the big government nature of this idea, and also incidentally includes a little story about his own ‘getting of wisdom’.

Such a proposal is, of course, consistent with a conservative approach to the welfare state, which is far from inconsistent with a big government philosophy, although the provision of a near universal benefit funded by a highly differential tax on business is quite eccentric. The framing of the speech shows a lot about Abbott’s paternalism, and the patriarchal nature of his beliefs about women. But, somehow, I suspect all this will get lost in the spin. Who’d have thought?

What should be of most concern to the Opposition is the very large number of their own voters who support such a policy. It might, of course, be objected that support is soft, but that ignores the fact that this plan was launched on the basis of reinforcing well entrenched public attitudes about the failures of the states in hospital management; attitudes Tony Abbott would have been well aware of when he frequently proposed a Commonwealth takeover as Health Minister.

No doubt it will also be claimed that support will ebb, as with the ETS (though it still has majority approval). But the introduction and selling of this plan has been very different – a high profile announcement, followed by a media blitz – much more akin to a budget. And interest groups which will resonate positively with public opinion – doctors, nurses, have reacted supportively.

These graphs below the fold show the movement in the net approval rating of Kevin Rudd and the Opposition Leader (Turnbull, then Abbott) over the last six months. As Possum notes, the youngest demographic is most disinclined to change their positive view of Rudd or their negative view of the Liberal leader, and the oldest demographic most inclined.

So, what’s going on here?

For a start, the ‘Gen Y sees through Kevin Rudd’s spin’ narrative is clearly wrong.

Yet the influence of the Howard-era battles remains – and its most significant legacy might be the fact that history is embedded in the national curriculum at all. This is a major shift from its folding into SOSE (Studies of Society and Environment) at P-10 levels in many states.

In an interesting piece for Crikey today, Tony Taylor looks at the reception and implementation of the history curriculum:

The shameful moments came when, uncertain how to tackle a curriculum that was being hyped as traditionalist — and while Tony Abbott was pictured crouched in earnest conversation with an Aboriginal elder — some Opposition MPs started to count mentions of Aborigines in the curriculum. Should there be a quota on references to Aborigines? Give me a break! How would I feel, I asked myself, if I were an indigenous Australian and yet again in the newspapers I read that my culture’s presence in the nation’s schools was unwelcome?

When both sides of Australian politics acknowledge, with sincerity and generosity, the value and contribution of our indigenous heritage, the country will have truly grown up. Until then, we wait, but not with bated breath.

There were other knee-jerk reactions, too. Gallipoli watchers were at work. Wilful misreaders were prominent. Conspiracy theorists abounded. SOSE educators, a vanishing breed, said the curriculum was too narrow. Conservative commentators, a stubborn sort, said, variously, it was too broad, too stodgy, too socialist and a bit too Asian. More generally though, the new history draft was well received.

But, as Taylor argued, there’s always a potential gap between policy text and pedagogical practice. He goes on to discuss the absence of expertise in history at secondary and primary schools, and crucially for the future of the curriculum, in university Education Faculties.

The whole thing is worth a read.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the draft national curriculum is here.

Essentially, it encompasses a phased takeover of responsibility for activity based hospital funding by the Commonwealth, with 30% of GST revenue to be diverted directly to hospitals. Funding would flow to individual hospitals, with local authorities being funded to treat individual patients, and the establishment of national standards of care.

Primary health care will become the sole responsibility of the Commonwealth.

Politically, it buys the Commonwealth a possible fight with the largely unpopular state governments, and appears to short circuit the state health departments, leaving them with residual functions for the less glamorous administrative functions of hospital systems. It also incorporates the local focus Tony Abbott has championed, with flexibility for clincal and funding decisions to be made at hospital or regional level. The Commonwealth would become, in effect, a regulatory and activity based funding body, rather than ‘taking over’ hospitals, but the threat of a referendum remains.

Subsequent announcements between now and the election will focus on extra beds, doctor and nurse training, support for GPs, and the introduction of electronic patient record monitoring.

The AMA is supportive; the Coalition opposed.

Detail of the National Health and Hospitals Network Plan can be found here.

Update: Bernard Keane observes at The Stump that the plan comes with a snappy slogan – “funded nationally, run locally”.

Update: Melissa Sweet analyses the announcement at Croakey.

Update: The transcript of Kevin Rudd’s Q&A at the Press Club is now available here.

I doubt that Kevin Rudd ever expected the ‘whacking’ in the polls he trumpeted. Rather, this was part of the rhetorical structure of the weekend of apologies – convincing the public that he’d already taken his medicine, and that they should think again about the government’s virtues (which he, and Ministers, have used the sorry-fest to remind everyone of) and think harder about the Coalition. A very similar line has been working wonders for Gordon Brown of late.

In other words, rather than offering the proverbial commentary on the polls, Rudd’s remarks are part of a set piece of political manoeuvring aiming to draw a line in the sand, and to establish a contrast between the government’s new policy announcements (the national curriculum and health) and the opposition’s negativity. That’s potentially quite an effective play when everything we’ve seen of of Abbott et al over the last few weeks has been pure opposition.

Incidentally, I’d repeat the point I’ve made a number of times before – among all sorts of other influences, commentary on the polls has an underlying and perhaps unexamined premise that a Liberal majority is the natural state of affairs. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain the narrative of trouble and crisis when Labor is still comfortably ahead. It’s as if the Coalition ever overtaking Labor spells doom and destruction for the Rudd government. It would not. It’s worth underlining the fact that governments are often behind in the polls, and come back to win elections. John Howard frequently appeared headed for defeat in each electoral cycle after his first win.

Trevor Cook provides a useful reminder another point of comparison – to the Rudd opposition of the late Howard years.

Speaking of which, those who talked about Howard’s comments and policy changes around the time of the Aston by-election in 2001 were making the better comparison than the chorus of ‘Beattie reborn!’ songsters. The difference, of course, is that Howard appeared headed for a genuine whacking in early 2001, while Rudd is sitting pretty.

While we’re talking polls, I’d also recommend a squizzy at Possum’s fascinating tables on the Essential Research questions about the assessment of leaders’ attributes.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will hold an ideas forum on Friday in much the same vein as Kevin Rudd’s famed 2020 summit.

But he insists it will be more than a glorified photo opportunity.

The roundtable is set to feature some high-profile Australians, such as former defence boss Peter Cosgrove and indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who will lend their views on future public policy.

Mr Abbott wants to take on the government intellectually, and told coalition colleagues they must be willing to fight the “battle of ideas”.

Each contributor has been asked to come up with no more than five big ideas to shape Australia in the medium- to long-term.

Unlike the 2020 summit, there doesn’t appear to be an opportunity for citizens to have input. So, perhaps, we can fill the void. What ideas should Tony Abbott consider?

Tony Abbott’s relish in articulating slogans such as “electrocution denial” belies his purported concern for those who tragically lost their lives. Similarly, claims that roof insulation is the nation’s greatest threat – ‘worse than terrorism’ – are hyperbole of the most absurd kind.

Abbott’s opposition, as pledged at the outset, is wholly characterised by oppositionism. There’s a perceptible difference between holding a government accountable and delighting in getting on the political front foot. Abbott’s constant mantra that ‘the mood is turning’ may turn out not to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but rather evidence of his own obsession with winning at all costs. Oppositions always run the risk of getting over-cocky, and looking driven by the logic of the political contest rather than the public good. Abbott, in particular, is prone to that risk, and it should be worrying for him if the perception develops that he’s primarily motivated by his own political aggrandisement.

Whether or not this is one of those moments remains to be seen. But I suspect that the longer it’s prolonged, the more defences such as ’should the health minister resign over medical malpractice?’ (despite the spurious nature of the analogy), and indeed the better argument that shonky bosses bear direct responsibility, may start to have an impact in the public mind. It’s not as if a lot of people haven’t encountered problems with substandard building work, for instance. And this line is one Abbott himself invited with his irresponsible ranting about ‘industrial manslaughter’.

This issue will be resolved not on its merits but on its politics. But the opposition needs to keep the focus on its merits not on its politics, for it to be good politics. Their own frenzy of wild abandon may shine the light back on their own motives and bona fides (or lack thereof).

Update: A number of commenters on this and another thread have referred to some interesting stuff from Possum, so I’ve created a dedicated thread for discussing his insights.

That assumption seemed to be shared by the panel. It surprised me, because Christopher Pearson reproduced a transcript of Abbott’s remarks in his column in The Australian on Sunday.

The part about “the poor will always be with us” is indicated, rather than quoted, perhaps because (as often occurs) it was a question from the floor and the recording wasn’t clear. Sometimes when a session is transcribed, the speaker’s comments are also omitted if a question can’t be accurately redacted. But the substance of Abbott’s remarks, mostly verbatim, is in fact on the public record.

Kevin Rudd is real too. He really is a wonky, nerdy bureaucrat. Perish the thought that we would want to vote for someone who knew something about policy?

But why is it assumed that the persona doesn’t mask something else? Could Tony Abbott be the one spinning a web of symbolism? Wasn’t George W. Bush the candidate we’d rather have a beer with?

[Rhetorical questions in the mode of KRudd.]

Now, I haven’t read Tony’s tome. Be interested to hear from anyone who has. But, Geoffrey Barker has, and he wrote this in the Fin Review today:

… we will have entered the age of bogan politics for a bogan nation: vulgar, simplistic, and focused on aggression, and extremist and alarmist claims. It will be politics to appeal to a dumbed-down electorate, attracted to tattoos and leaders who wear Speedos and fluorescent Lycra cycling outfits.

Yet behind his populist and athletic facade, Abbott is a throne-and-altar conservative with a deeply pessimistic view of human nature and its capacity for improvement. His manifesto, Battlelines, stresses how hard it is for humans to reconcile carnal appetites with their spiritual yearnings, and he acknowledges that dilemma in his life.

Hence, despite Abbott’s “trust the people” populism, he stresses the importance of the secular authority of the monarchy or the church to control frail humanity. When he removes the public mask, the commitments to monarch and pope define the real Abbott. They do not sit easily with his bogan politics, but that does not appear to worry him.

Kevin Rudd’s health policy is likely to be the centrepiece of the government’s plan for re-election.

Meanwhile, writing at The Age, Kenneth Davidson provides a very good argument for not subsidising the private health insurers at all.

Tony Abbott bemoans lack of sex on campaign trail

* Speaks candidly about sex life
* “One of life’s greatest pleasures”
* “Almost impossible on campaign trail”

If you dare, you can “read more about sex-starved Tony Abbott at The Examiner”.

Hat tip to a Facebook friend for the question in the title of the post.

Go read.

Elsewhere: Andrew Hamilton in Eureka Street on Tony Abbott, Jesus and the poor, and in the same publication, Vinnies’ John Falzon on the ‘New Paternalism’ and precisely why Abbott’s comments are so offensive.

The clear implication is that this isn’t the impression people would form if they went by the coverage and commentary in the Australian media.

Similarly, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Copenhagen spelt doom for any concerted international action on climate change (despite the fact that the Coalition’s policy is still tied into setting emissions targets, no matter how ineffectual it would be; and that it also provides Liberal moderates some leverage if the Abbott truck hits an electoral blackspot). There’s been nary a word published about the targets that states agreed to submit post-Copenhagen. It’s as if the event’s only significance was its ramifications for Australian domestic politics.

The Economist links to The Sustainability Institute’s interactive Climate Score Card, which enables a picture to be drawn of the probable impacts on average temperature of the various nations’ commitments. The paper also points out that:

countries can express their intentions in different ways, and that many have provided two or more levels of commitment: a low one that they say they will pursue regardless, and one or more higher ones that they will try for if enough other countries are also going high.

For those whose horizon is wider than the prism of the Australian partisan debate, the whole thing, as they say, is worth reading.