Imagine you and I own houses and they both burn down in separate incidents. The government generously steps in offering to pay for new houses.

Not funny, Tones: Liberal MPs are still shaking their heads at Abbott's maternity model.

Now, yours was a modest timber framed unit no better than a shack because you are not wealthy. Mine, on the other hand, was a grand Taj Mahal of a structure with an indoor/outdoor pool and all the mod cons. Thus, I get a cheque for a $1.5 million to rebuild. You on the other hand, well you get a lot less. Let’s say, $185,000. Incensed? It’s a fair bet you would be.

Leaving aside the legitimate question of why it is the state’s role to use scarce taxpayer funds to meet your private costs anyway, the equity of the above scenario, or rather the lack of it, stinks. It is after all, like a reverse means test: the better off you are, the more you get from the government. No one in a position of responsibility would endorse this kind of thing right?

Perhaps this is why Tony Abbott assessed that his party-room would look askance at his proposed paid parental leave scheme designed to give parents earning $150,000 per year and above, $75,000 to stay at home for the first six months of a baby’s life whereas someone on $30,000 a year, would be paid on $15,000 to do the same job. He knew the shadow cabinet would go into apoplexy over his plan to fund it through a new tax on business.

He knew also that the same result would come from the party-room if he bowled it up there. So despite the fact that both groups were due to meet in the next 24 hours, he jumped. Forcing their hands, he unveiled the policy unilaterally. It was, he told his startled MPs the next day, ``a leader’s call’‘. Sometimes it is better to seek forgiveness than permission, he added, in characteristically biblical, Abbott style.

As a way of operating, it was nothing if not decisive. Bold if not brazen. Calculating, if not devious. But mostly it was just plain crazy. Coalition MPs were pincered between rebuffing their new leader in an election year or embracing a policy fundamentally at odds with Liberal Party precepts. Some were able to be talked into submission on tactical grounds alone. According to this view, the surprise announcement was a master-stroke because it stole the oxygen from Kevin Rudd’s massive hospital take-over plan announced just days before.

Still more liked the policy itself because it offered 26 weeks with full salary and superannuation maintenance. From a popularity standpoint, they reasoned, it trumped Labor’s 18 weeks on the minimum wage and made Kevin Rudd look parsimonious into the bargain. Here was a way into the hearts of Labor’s ``working family’’ base, and particularly those of women voters - a key demographic with whom Mr Abbott was suspected to be on the nose.

But plenty were still miffed. At the party-room meeting, some 18 MPs arc-ed up. Curiously most were angry at being left out of the loop rather than with the merits of the policy itself. The minor upwelling was led by the intemperate fire-brand, Wilson Tuckey. Tuckey, you’ll remember, was the Guy Fawkes who eventually succeeded where his namesake failed, by blowing up Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership. Tuckey’s beef expressed publicly and often, had been that the millionaire republican had failed to bring the party-room with him.

So it should have come as no surprise to Tony Abbott, the direct beneficiary of those agitations, that Tuckey again led the charge against signs Abbott was headed the same way. In the end, Abbott promised not to do it again. But don’t be fooled into thinking this has quelled the discontent. Many senior Liberals remain outraged and now that outrage is with the policy itself. One MP, who wished to remain anonymous, said unhappiness in the party-room was deeper than had been reported. ``You would be hard-pressed to find anyone serious who likes it… it is not just seriously bad policy, it is completely nuts,’’ the MP said. ``We will get absolutely flayed. ``Rudd and Gillard will have a field day with this, it was unbelievably stupid and crazy’‘.

Another senior figure agreed saying the idea of applying a new tax on business right when all the momentum is for cutting taxes to encourage employment, was stupid. ``This was our logic for workplace reform and a lot of other things we did - to cut costs and drive investment and employment, this goes the other way’‘, the MP said. One Canberra insider, was even more scathing. ``If Kevin Rudd had proposed this, a new tax on the most successful businesses, the Liberals would have condemned it as the worst kind of European socialism’‘.

Of course, what some MPs were reluctant to say even privately, former treasurer, Peter Costello said publicly this week. To Abbott’s chagrin, the party’s most respected economic figure described it as ``silly’’ and Mr Abbott of engaging in ``a race to the bottom’‘. Costello said he’d been to a lot of Liberal Party meetings in his time, but never once heard anyone argue for higher taxes. Ouch.

Most worrying for Liberals is what the policy and, for that matter, its idiosyncratic release, says about the current leadership. As Labor keeps reminding us, Tony Abbott is a man who once described economics as boring. While many voters would agree with the sentiment, they expect their political leaders to get across the dismal science and to make policy driven by sound economic principles.

Yet this policy betrays the opposite on both counts. This is why the Government is openly likening the Liberal leader to Mark Latham.

Liberals everywhere are buoyed by their return to the competitiveness as shown in successive opinion polls this year. But they would be less happy about how this policy went down. Generous though it may be, Newspoll showed it was not cutting through with voters.

There is a growing nervousness that like Latham, Abbott’s rise is in danger of plateauing, of topping out well before polling day as the weight of contradictory policies and an over-eagerness to fight rather than make good policy, scares voters off.

For Tony Abbott now, the task must be one of trust building and consolidation. He must find a way to counter the ``Abbott is a risk’’ line being peddled against him. Unfortunately, brand new taxes to fund transparently populist policies you are known to despise, are more likely to result in your own house burning down than your opponent’s.

54 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      10:49am | 20/03/10

      I can think of some pretty good reasons this policy isn’t cutting through to voters. Most likely a lot of women are not getting anywhere near $150 000.00 per years employment income and a lot less have reached that level. I think people see this as a re-distribution of wealth, didn’t Abbott accuse Rudd of that recently?

    • Bart says:

      12:57am | 22/03/10

      You could have a point there.
      But at least he does not want to redistribute to corrupt third world countries, such as the ETS scam invented by Rudd, Wong and Turnbull

    • Napolean says:

      11:16am | 20/03/10

      Listen to the sound of the fuse burning

    • RT says:

      11:40am | 20/03/10

      Wow… not a lot of well thought out opinions there I must say. Lack of equity? Are you kidding?

      To use your example of destroyed housing, you’ve naively forgotten what the purpose of the government hand out would be - for compensation. If you suffered loss of $185,000 then that’s all you get. To give any more would be to make a profit from the tragedy, which is not equitable at all.

      If you suffered loss of $1.5M then that is your compensation. If you are going to give someone 100% of the value of their house destroyed, you have give 100% to everyone. That’s only fair.

      In relation to paid maternity leave, in order to be fair for all, it has to be somewhat means tested as it to is a form of compensation.

      If every working mother received an equal $30,000 cheque to stay home for the first 6 months, you’d have a portion of minimum wage women having children as a job given it pays more.

      To remain fair, that is what is required. It is a form of equitable compensation.

      If you want to learn more about it, read some of the High Court cases on the issue - there are quite a few - and some insightful comments from Justices Kirby, Gummow, Gaudron, Deane and Mason CJ.

    • Astrosodi says:

      09:24am | 22/03/10

      But it isn’t the government’s job to provide insurance. As with other social security, it isn’t about providing replacement value of the loss, it’s about ensuring that each member of the community has an equitable system that provides for their welfare, not their profit. If I lose my job, do I get the payments equal to the average of my wages to date as indicative of my loss? Or do I get the standard rate that every person gets? If I want to increase the rate to be reflective of my actual wage loss, I provately fund income protection insurance. The money I get from the government via social security is a safety net, not insurance.
      Even in disaster relief funds and other special payments, people don’t get a ‘100% cover’ payment. And compulsory acquistion schemes are a very different kettle of fish, as the government is acquiring assets in those cases (which become government assets. Unless people sign over the deed to the kids…

    • OzyMoron says:

      11:48am | 20/03/10

      In other words, you want a Great Big New Flash House?

    • Steve M says:

      02:55pm | 07/06/10

      you bet. And i’ll use your money to add a new Plasma as well. Thanks for the support. After all, i wont need the money to raise kids, they are self feeding/cleaning.

    • stephen says:

      12:46pm | 20/03/10

      He wants to give Aussie mums and dads up to 150,000 per year to stay home and breed, whilst it looks seriously like the lowest paid in our workforce is gonna get a measly 10 bucks a week pay rise ?
      (I must be in lucifer’s pit already.)

    • stephen says:

      11:02pm | 21/03/10

      Yes, and I’ll repeat that.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:12pm | 20/03/10

      I too believe that Tony Abbott is mad to be promoting paid maternity leave as a part of the coalition policy.  Why do a “me too” on a Labor Party policy ?  He should leave the lack of credibility calls for Mr Rudd and his government.

    • Betsey Bandicoot says:

      01:57pm | 20/03/10

      He’s getting boring, isn’t he?

    • Bob H says:

      02:16pm | 20/03/10

      As with all politicians there will be a personal gain - must be some of Tonys’  well paid female friends are thinking of starting a family.

    • steve says:

      02:54pm | 20/03/10

      and if KRudd had put this up you would have been singing his praises for a brilliant move to lift the working mother to be out of poverty. Yep real balance.
      Your house burn down analogy is called insurance and that is just what they do

    • alf says:

      12:59pm | 21/03/10

      I think anyone would be outraged with this insane policy, no matter what political ideology you belong to.

    • Astrosodi says:

      09:28am | 22/03/10

      But insurance is payee finded, and will only pay out the value of your house if you’ve paid an adequate premium. Perhaps then, they should have ‘maternity leave insurance’? I doubt any insurance company would go anywhere near that idea…

    • Gerard says:

      03:14pm | 20/03/10

      Well said.  Whose votes does Abbott think he’s going to win, anyway?  I’ll never vote Liberal again as long as the current or two previous imbeciles are running the asylum.  If I wanted socialist government and yet more welfare (which I don’t), I could always vote Labor.  We don’t need two parties committeed to the destruction of this country.

    • John A Neve says:

      04:19pm | 20/03/10

      As I pointed out the other day Joseph Stalin trained in a seminary as has Tony Abbott !!  Joseph became a bloody dictator and it looks as if Tony likes his own way, democracy, what’s that says Tony.

      Twenty six weeks pay at up to $150,000 !!!  But those mothers on the basic wage will only get the basic wage, where is the fairness and equity in that?
      The rich get richer and the poor struggle on, good one Tony, when in doubt just buy the mothers out, or at least some of them.

    • acker says:

      04:33pm | 20/03/10

      I’m an LHSAC commitee chair of a Greater Southern Area Health Service Hospital. I do know the CEO of the group had her Personal Assistant place an advert online, for a Personal Assistant for her Personal Assistant….that is bureaucracy gone Haywire smile 
      Within the last 2 years NSW has had the following Health Ministers
      *Reba Maher
      *John Della Bosca
      *John Hertsigagos
      *Carmel Tebbutt

      Within the last 3 years funding was approved for a much needed Wagga Hospital, and then withdrawn.

      Friggin pathetic and the rathole 1930’s crumbling pile of **** remains :(

    • Payton L. Inkletter says:

      06:13pm | 20/03/10

      Mark, your house replacement analogy highlights very well the gross inequity of Tony Abbott’s proposed paid parental leave scheme, and it changes nothing that it is nominated to be temporary, with the Government of the day taking over the funding from big business in better economic times.

      You know, how should a poor and struggling low paid couple look upon a well off couple, who would be paid up to $3000 a week for the 6 months, who each year might budget for an overseas holiday, attendance at opera and theatre performances, driving luxury motor vehicles, eating out often at fine restaurants, and so on? The $3000 a week helps them to keep up this lifestyle. The struggling couple might get only $543 a week, and both couples have the same challenge: affording the care of a new baby.

      If all new parents under such a scheme were to receive the basic wage for the duration of the assistance, even then the better off parents can make their $543 go much further, given the asset and savings base they’re starting with.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      07:01pm | 20/03/10

      Where are all the right wing nut jobs? Why aren’t they on this forum going to bat for their “No new taxes” leader.

      Mark I couldn’t agree more, the “Abbott is a risk” is starting to solidify within the electorate. Most people, even those on the conservative side, realize that Tony was always teetering on the edge. Too many skeletons in his closet that will come back to haunt him at election time. Tony has opened his mouth too many times in the past before engaging his brain and has left his impression on the electorate. All he has left in his arsenal is one liners and anger, as demonstrated on Friday in the house, and his one liners aren’t that great. No one will trust him on health, his record speaks for itself, his economic credentials are flailing at best and he continually alienates those who he needs to support him. His greatest asset is his negativity which won’t win him an election.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:55pm | 20/03/10

      Abbott’s policy, like the Henry Tax Review, provides mixed signals on attitude towards work. If you’re having a baby the government will pay you not to work. If you are long term unemployed then the government will not pay you to not work. If you are an older worker the government will pay you to keep you working and if you are a SINK or DINK you’d better keep on working to pay for all the middle class welfare.

    • Ryan says:

      11:08pm | 20/03/10

      Well I guess thats what $250 million dollars buys you, unashamedly Labor slanted media and not a journalist with one ounce of integrity nor credibility left. I guess the dollar really is the last word. Well done Mark, been on any skii trips lately?

    • Beno says:

      11:34pm | 20/03/10

      I think the photo that accompanied the story - he’s a clown without make-up.  The more time he is given the more we will see just why7 the Howard-Costellu Government tried to hide him.  He has no depth and is the worst type of politician - one who will jump on any populist bandwagon going past.  As Costello said of Abbott when interviewed while a re-shuffle of the then cabinet was being contemplated by Howard he’ll make a contribution to the new cabinet, but not in an economic portfolio.  Whatevr you think of individuals most people want to leave the serious thinkers in charge of the money and the clowns in charge of entertainment.

    • southernX says:

      05:44am | 21/03/10

      It’s actually a very clever policy.  It reflects that, for the most part, women earning large amounts are bright and hardworking (note I say for the most part) and just the sort of people that Australia wants to have kids.  If you don;t give these women more money, you get what has happened in the UK -high paid women not having kids because the financial loss is crippling. 

      Why do people think that if you put a negative incentive on the ‘best’ in our community to have kids, that is a good thing? Intelligence is closely linked to genetic background.  This is the first maternity policy I would vote for - and I am a man earning over $200k who’s partner earns very little through career choice, so our personal benefit would be little.

    • Louisa says:

      08:20am | 21/03/10

      Spot on, SouthernX

    • Fred says:

      12:06pm | 21/03/10

      SouthernX, I think your theory on the surface sounds nice but is also very close to leading to dangerous territory.  You can’t say ‘You earn more, so you’re allowed to reproduce.  You don’t earn much so you can’t have children’

      And I know you’re not suggesting that but what you are suggesting could easily lead to that

    • Phil says:

      03:08pm | 21/03/10

      Fred

      I dont know about you but I dont know that many women on $ 150K pa. Sure I know many on 50-100 but not much more in general. I appreciate your point, but noone will ever say someone does not deserve the chance for a family.

      I will not benefit one cent by either proposal as my wife and I have our daughters. The policy though is based on indemnity. You are replenished for what you lost. in this case the wife/womans income.

      The authors rediculous scenario whereby the house burnt down is stupid. If you have a three bedrrom fibro home then insurers would rebuild a similar home, whereas if you had a 800 squ m mansion that is what you would get after a fire.

      Its like the bushfire appeal, the government gave a small but similar amount to everyone then after that gave some more to those without insurance.

      The system would need a minimum so stay at home mums could get something, also those who have generally worked harder and studied get a financial reward (read similar income to that they were earning before they decided to have a child)  to have children that has to be better for the community. I am sure the proposal was floated to get feedback and guess what that is happening.

      A high income person would generally then send their children to private schools thus saving the taxpayer the full cost of educating their children.

      Based on the theory put forward by many, that the baby bonus got a lot of single women pregnant for the plasma screen/holiday/new clothes, then the option of $ 500 a week for 18 weeks or $ 9,000 over the period would do the same, whereas many career women could then afford to have children.

      But a high achiever on say $ 90,000 would probably be more inclined to have a child if they got 80-90% of their pre baby income for 6 months, as their lifestyle is acustomed to a high level of income and the sudden loss of this could mean that they cannot get by. I am not going to speculate that those on good incomes could be better parents or worse that lower paid ones as it is very subjective and we all know those at extremes who either do a fantastic job or those that for whom docs should remove the children.

      Many of high earners would work for large companies who would benefit from the money. They would normally go back to work be that full or part time and pay the necessary taxes at the higher rates that they used to.

      No one is saying cause you dont earn much you dont deserve more or less its simply a principal of indemnity, putting you in the position you were in before the child for a period.

    • persephone says:

      04:11pm | 21/03/10

      Except it’s a nonsense.

      All the clever, intelligent, hard working, high income women I know who want to have kids have them. They are generally valued enough by their employers that they can negotiate appropriate leave; if they can’t, being high income earners, it doesn’t take them long enough to put aside enough money to do so.

      The only ones I know who haven’t had kids could have, but didn’t want to.

      The women who have a financial disincentive to have kids at the moment and genuinely can’t afford to are middle and low income earners, who don’t have the same negotiating power or the same ability to generate excess income.

    • Adam says:

      08:06pm | 21/03/10

      Yeah, because going without 150k is crippling.

    • Astrosodi says:

      09:36am | 22/03/10

      It’s a dangerous position to take saying that ‘for the most part, women earning large amounts are bright and hardworking’ and that this means a ‘negative incentive on the “best” in our community to have kids’. I know you’ve qualified that with the ‘most part’, but there are many, many, many wonderful parents who will never earn anywhere near that sort of money. To argue that would result in a default postion that most fo the country, indeed the world, are not worthy of breeding.

      What if a household has a husband on 200K a year, and has a wife who has been a devoted mother at home raising two children; then a husband and wife on 300K (say, husband on 200K and wife on 100K) and they have their first child and she gets 1ooK continued and the other mum gets nothing? How is one mother better than the other?
      And yes, you can make up millions of scenarios to highlight both sides. 

      At the end of the day,  it isn’t the government’s job to insure this on an indemnity basis. I’m all for providing taxpayer funded maternity leave, but just not this way. While the government shoudl be providing the saftey net for those women who don’t have access to maternity leave arrangments through their employer, I think that this indemnity arrangement needs a lot more thought.

    • KH says:

      10:31am | 22/03/10

      Phil - are you kidding me?! What planet do you live on? Private schools get public funding as well as the fees they charge - and it is actually quite disproportionate to what public schools get.  Thats how they afford the libraries and sports facilities, whilst public schools have to have cheap portable buildings and no facilities.  If you are in an accident, its still a public hospital you will be taken to.  And your ridiculous argument about how they earn more so they have more to lose!  I mean honestly - so they can’t have the new euro-car every other year.  So they can’t have dinner out 3 times a week.  So they can’t afford all the gadgets and multiple computers/TVs, cable television, expensive watches/handbags whatever….  Get real!  If you want a kid, then maybe you have to sit down and be realistic about what you need and what you want - there is a difference.  You need shelter, food/water, warmth and clothing.  Just about everything else is a luxury, no matter how much you think you ‘need’ it.

    • Phil says:

      03:55pm | 22/03/10

      KH

      As I have said I will not benefit one cent by either proposal.

      I bring in over 90% of the income to our home, thus if we did have a child Rudd’s plan would put more cash in our pockets.

      My children do go to an indepentent/private school, which by the way does not have all air conditioned class rooms. Only major facilities High School rooms have AC.

      I know state and federal governments pay monies to private schools, but looking at our school budget it is 62% of all costs and we have what I call low fees being $ 8,000 per year for my two daughters. There is no way the local primary/high school could survive on that amount per child, thus your agrument that they pay more to educate private children is a lie.

      My daughters school does have a library, (they are getting a new big one thanks to Julia and her overpriced BER program) as did the state schools I went to. In fact the state schools I attended had better facilities than exist in my daughters school. They have one sports oval, but they are not flash ala Kings/Cranbrook or Scotts.

      Abbotts plan is about replacing income, not providing a level playing field. So if in my case my wife works two days a week and brings home $ 280 a week should she get a pay rise to have a child ? It would be good to get the same amount or even 90% as she wouldnt have to travel to work.

      Having said that each child my wife had cost me nearly $ 7,000 as she was a private patient in a public hospital and chose her preferred specialist whose fees were in the order of $ 4,500 of which medicare gave me $ 650 or thereabouts.

      I have never said that wealthy parents do a better job, I stated that we all know parents from both extremes who have done well and others who should have their children removed by docs. In some poorer families they have more together time as they dont have the cash to go out and have dinner each week/month.

      Everyone I know made a decision to have children based on their desire for children, money didnt enter the fray. However today living in Sydney with average house prices of $ 5-600,000 plus for starters, one income is usually not enough, and I dare say that more labor voters who work hard before children would benefit from Abbotts plan than they would Rudd’s, and this could not be a bad thing as we need population growth to sustain an aging polulation.

      As I have said many times, life is a choice, where you work and to a point how much you earn. I left school in year 10 with excellent maths and crap english results. I earn well into 6 figures by hard work and being smart.

      Havent women been putting off children for two long often to have them later for financial reasons, thus with much higher chances of medical complications etc? These complications are not just at birth but also later in life. It is a fact that a woman over 30 who has a prolinged birth has a much higher change of incontinence than one who has their children earlier as the body has a stronger chance of recovery.

      Abbotts plan whilst not perfect is surely better than that of Rudd. I personally think its too generous and should be capped at what I would call a successful womans wage being in the order of $ 80-90,000.

      Otherwise why dont we scrap minimum wages and have a maximum wage for all workers, as this is what is being proposed by Rudd’s maternity scheme, regardless of if you are a medical specialist or a garbo.

    • zoe says:

      08:13am | 21/03/10

      I think your house analogy doesn’t quite work the way you want it to Mark.  The problem with Abbot’s scheme is that it would be paying people significant differences for what equates to essentially the same work that is looking after a baby.  There is no guarantee that the quality of that work would be any different.  For example, the higher paid person might not breastfeed.  This notion that people have, that we should be encouraging the ‘intelligent’ to breed more is not necessarily a good thing either.  One of my friends left school in Year 10 and worked in retail ever since, but she is probably the best mum I know.  She makes sure they eat well, cooks for them, plays with them, reads to them.  Others that I know of the more ‘intelligent’ variety, ignore their kids for the most part, let them eat junk food etc.  Not all parents are as I’ve described above however, before anybody jumps down my throat.  I just really don’t like this policy (It wreaks of classism and saying one kid deserves more than the other) and I normally don’t mind Abbot.  That’s not to say that I think the labor policy is any better.

    • Daniel says:

      09:42am | 21/03/10

      We all know that its Liberal policy to have no paid maternity scheme.Why Abbott came out with this really shows he is nuts.Dont get conned into the trap of votingLiberal.

    • Anthony says:

      09:55am | 21/03/10

      Just when do you see rudds policy improving? If you want a crap anology, if I need to pay a dental levy and I pay a 14,000 medicare levy a year then why shouldn’t big business fund this.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      04:53pm | 21/03/10

      So Anthony, you are arguing for increased taxes, by complaining about high taxes? Or have you missed that if big business gets taxed that cost is passed on to consumers (I.e. You)?

    • stephen says:

      10:50pm | 21/03/10

      That’s a crap analogy Anthony.
      I’ve offered the liberal party to have babies for nothing (true), but they did not respond.

    • cameron says:

      05:31pm | 21/03/10

      The analogy of the house doesn’t work. Houses are insured for loss, jobs normally aren’t and I’m pretty sure you can’t insure your income for pregnancy and then child either.

      Would anyone mind if the GST went to 11% and we used the extra 1% for maternity leave and the health system ?

    • AF says:

      09:09am | 22/03/10

      Yes, we do mind. Everything is increasing in price already and you want to raise the GST? Even 1% will make a huge difference - I can see it now. The transport companies will increase their charges due to “cost of fuel increases”, which will, in turn increase grocery prices by more than the 1% rise in GST. Here’s a novel idea.. how about the government actually manages the money they already get and prioritise spending instead of throwing money at every new scheme they come up with?

    • Arnold says:

      11:31am | 22/03/10

      AF, that is ridiculous.  GST has absolutely zero effect on businesses.  It is an end user tax only.  That is, only purchases made for private use actually feel the brunt of the GST.

      Any GST paid by businesses is refunded by the tax office through their business activity statements.

      Any increase on the price of goods of more than 1% (if the GST was increased by this) is purely profiteering by those businesses.

    • iansand says:

      06:24pm | 21/03/10

      Vote for Abbott.  You know that this policy will come out of the Liberal party room unchanged.

      And if you believe that, I have a tooth fairy who will sell you a bridge.  It is the policy of a leader who knows he will not win the next election.  Colour and movement to fascinate the credulous.

    • Matthew says:

      07:09pm | 21/03/10

      Here is an article that aptly describes Abbott’s scheme.  It’s actually a very generous scheme that provides a better outcome for low income and high income workers.  So tax goes up 1.7%, it will affect some businesses who will pass on the costs no doubt, but when banks charge $2 to use an alternative ATM, I don’t feel sympathy for them.

      Fact is it is a great scheme.  Better than Labor’s (e.g. Super and Money gained).

      What I would ask is, people mention that Abbott cannot be trusted, yet it is Rudd who constantly lies .. I mean spins.  It is Rudd who constantly denigrates women, but yet people label Abbott as the bigot.

      People need to wake up and make judgements for themselves, and until they do, voting should be optional, because the fate of our country is more often than decided by people ‘who heard so and so is a so and so’.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      10:03pm | 21/03/10

      You ommitted the bottom half of the picture with Julie Bishop in it

    • FreddoFrog says:

      08:18am | 22/03/10

      I think shes been in the bottom of the pic , with all Liberal Leader since they have been in opposition, She manages to hang onto that job somehow. It’s sure not her looks keeping her there at 53 she looks tired and worn compared to the Labor side

    • Simon the Pieman says:

      12:58pm | 22/03/10

      Julie Bishop certainly must be good at something

    • Steve Turner says:

      12:12am | 22/03/10

      We have a Labor Government Mark Kenny, but 95% of what you write is critisism of the opposition. You don’t appear to have a balanced bone in your body.
      If you want an economic mess try the new broadband network. Mandate $4.7B, not $43B. No costings, no business plan, no idea of cost to consumers and set to be obsolete before finished and no scrutiny by MSM.
      Add that to all the other fiascos, insulation, memorial school halls,  green loans, hot water units, fuel/grocery watch ect.  Could it be more ridiculous.

    • Peter says:

      10:17am | 22/03/10

      Not a fan of Conroy and the way he has been attempting to run riot on Telstra staff, mum and dad shareholders etc. But the NBN could be the best thing to happen to Australia. If used to its full potential by government and business, we could take massive pressure off our roads, massive pressure off our public transport, improve health delivery etc. But its got to be fully utilised and not just provide extra TV channels. Can you imagine if say a $5b road upgrade was no longer required, or billions saved in not investing extra money of public transport infrastructure etc. There can be many many billions saved by Government, Business and Workers if this is utilised properly…

    • Bertram B says:

      06:41am | 22/03/10

      Its a give to the rich and bugga the poor scheme. Stay at home mum’s get nothing at all. Disgraceful. And why should Big Business pay for this they already donate alot to charity ect. Abbott has stunned me, I assumed Big Business donated to the Liberals but you can bet that will stop now. And as for saying its for a short period, well once we start paying for anything , its there permanently. In the long run Australians will be worse off with rising costs and baby making will become a job to some, other women will become unemployable

    • KH says:

      07:49am | 22/03/10

      There is no way this policy would ever actually happen.  “Big Business” has a lot of influence - and if the Liberals want their support, not to mention funding for their election campaign, they had better rethink the whole thing.  Or in this case, just think it through once.
      I am a card carrying member of the Labour party.  If Kevin came up with this policy, I would be seriously reconsidering my vote.  It is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.  I don’t think that the government, be it state or federal, should be paying for your personal expenses either.  Surely there can’t be that many stupid people out there that simply can’t see how this would be unsustainable?  As salaries/wages go up, this ridiculous policy would become outrageously expensive, and only increase every year.  No doubt the taxes would increase too.  And at whose expense?  To fund this middle class welfare (and for the most part, it will be) who is going to lose? What effect would a policy like this have on women’s employment prospects?  On everyones employment prospects?  Higher taxes on these ‘big businesses’ means less jobs.
      The very idea that someone on $150K a year should get any welfare is sickening to me, and to a lot of people I know.  I earn nowere near that, and I don’t really know many people who would, male or female.  My sense of generosity only extends to those who need it - the most vulnerable people, who can’t work because of injury, disability or age, or are on the lowest wages and really struggling.  The idea that someone who earns more than me (and my salary is over average) can get welfare just makes me angry.

    • Anna says:

      09:27am | 22/03/10

      I will likely recieve backlash for these comments, but what the hell. Why should women recieve more and more maternity leave payouts. The same way I have to save up money for a wedding, holiday, operation - women should be saving and planning for children, not relying on handouts and 18+ weeks of pay. Why is it that they want the best of both worlds - I want children, but god forbid I give up my lifestyle to do so. If women really want children, stay at home and make prepartion to be a mother a primary focus. If not, stay working - there are too many children shipped off to childcare and too many given no guidance through the most important years of their life. Why should women be paid to have children, I am sure there a plenty of mothers who don’t need that incentive.

    • Peter says:

      10:20am | 22/03/10

      Anna you are a gem. At least there is a female of this forum with some common sense.. It seems to me that Feminists seem resentful that they have to have kids, and these rich femmes don’t want to put back their plans on buying a Mercedes Benz hence their heckling on insisting they get $75k from Goverment that they don’t really need..

    • Peter says:

      10:17am | 22/03/10

      Interesting to hear now that the Sex Discrimation office is stepping in to suggest that Tony Abbotts Matt Leave is now a human right and will discriminate againt rich femmes who don’t want to sacrifice to have kids or put back their plans to buy a Mercedes Benz by six months. I wonder how far our human rights will go.. Will it be a yacht next?

    • Anjuli says:

      11:03am | 05/05/10

      I left work to have my child in 1965 in the UK ,as a married woman , I could claim unemployment allowance for 18 months then it was cut off ,which was how it was . I don’t agree with Tony that it should be half of what you earn while working it should be if anything the minimum wage ,or a centre link payment .

    • Anjuli says:

      02:24pm | 07/06/10

      I am of the older generation who had children without getting paid for it ,times are different now . Why should any one get paid more than the next person for having children they should all be paid the same the basic wage,bar none.
      If it is because we have less workers per head of the retirees then just maybe having the teenagers from 15 years of age into the work force rather than keeping them in school would benefit the country in the long term instead of hiding unemployment numbers by doing so.Most of them do not want to go to University or have the ability to do so,there is no shame in that.My husband was in an apprenticeship by the age of 14 where he stayed till he was 21 I was working at the age of 15 but had taken papers out doing a morning and evening round from being 10 years of age. The moral of the story in my mind, is maybe if we had these kids in work they would just be too tired to create mayhem.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

Malcolm Farr

941 web sites and nothing to read. The rarely visited http://t.co/vPfJmesu sites. http://t.co/MhXMyvZv

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @avgaunz: @drpiotrowski @ThePunchHQ really interesting article! Although we offer email and phone support, we still receive the odd letter too...

Daniel Piotrowski

This is so clever. Lunch bags that look like they have mould on them to stop co-workers stealing your sandwich http://t.co/v7iMSkRh

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

It’s usually best to avoid putting too many statistics in a post but reading the ACTU’s report…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter