It’s little wonder the Australian people, not to mention his own Coalition colleagues, are utterly confused about Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s sham paid parental leave scheme funded by his great big new tax on business.

Palming off parents. Picture: Gary Ramage

As soon as his International Women’s Day thought bubble hit the airwaves, there was instant disbelief.

After all, this was the man who, as Workplace Relations Minister, declared that a paid parental leave scheme would only happen over his government’s “dead body.” And who then proceeded to kill off the paid maternity leave proposal put forward by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

For 12 years in government, the Coalition refused to deliver a paid parental leave scheme.

But last Monday’s announcement was only the start of the confusion. In the days following, the Coalition proposal was positively chameleon-like in its ability to change its colours. And the Opposition Leader leopard-like as he twisted and turned in his effort to convince the Australian people that he had changed his spots.

First, there was his confusion over who would be eligible. The first figure he plucked from the air was 170,000, before a quick revision via a press release to align with the work test proposed by the Government – a change of around 25,000.

And then the $3.7 billion (that’s the cost of the Abbott plan) question: where’s the money coming from, which only resulted in even more confusion.

On the 8th of March, the Opposition Leader said all businesses with a taxable income of over $5 million a year would face a tax hike of 1.7 per cent

But a day later he changed his mind. Now it was companies paying more than $5 million in company tax – by which time around 2,500 businesses had absolutely no idea what was going on and were anxiously wondering if they were going to cop the new tax. And not just big businesses. Medium, even small businesses feared they would pay the higher rate of tax.

Then it emerged that businesses would also be expected to cancel their own paid maternity leave schemes – described as ‘offsetting savings in the rambling speech – but like so many other details nothing was clear.

Questioned about an implementation date, it varied from two years to an unachievable few months after winning the election.

All of which leaves Australians correctly questioning the ongoing unravelling of a plan that offers no detail, no cost and no timeframe.

Bewildered, parents-to-be rightly have no idea what to expect from an Abbott led government, aside from more confusion and a whopping new tax.

In contrast, the Government is delivering a responsible Paid Parental Leave scheme that is fair to business and fair to families.  It is fully costed and funded.  It is based on the expert recommendations of the Productivity Commission following its extensive, year-long inquiry involving businesses and unions.

Our scheme will start on 1 January next year and will not add to the taxes paid by businesses. 

It will give Australians planning to have a child or adding to their family the certainty and security of a paid parental leave scheme providing 18 weeks’ leave at the adult federal minimum wage, currently $543.78 a week, to the primary carer of a child born or adopted after 1 January, 2011.

It will be paid to women who’ve worked an average of one day a week in 10 of the 13 months before the birth of their child and is income tested at $150,000 on the income of the primary carer.

Under our scheme, the parental leave payments can be shared between parents. So, for example, it a mother stays home for 14 weeks and then returns to work, dad can then take over and use the remaining four weeks.

By topping up the Government’s paid parental leave scheme with other leave entitlements, the Productivity Commission estimated most parents would be able to spend six months caring for their baby.

Unlike the Opposition Leader, our commitment stretches back longer than a week.  We went to the last election promising a Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave and our scheme was announced in last year’s budget.

After years of waiting, next year Australia catches up with the rest of the world and finally gets its first paid parental leave scheme.

With nine months to go until the scheme begins and a couple of long weekends coming up, it could be a good reason to plan a romantic getaway.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

120 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Old Clive says:

      06:02am | 16/03/10

      What is there to say, isn’t this the person who was going to get the indigenous people into today’s society.

    • Paul H says:

      06:23am | 16/03/10

      After the Rudd government stuffups with pink batts and the boat people, I have serious doubts he will deliver on this one. The scheme will be instituted and then good old ‘sorry’ Kevy will turn around and say ‘sorry; again as he hikes up the taxes to fund a scheme that was undercosted AGAIN!

    • Scot says:

      10:57am | 16/03/10

      From former comments in these columns Macklin has always been a public servant just like Rudd, she was at least a High Commissioner,  put there by the unions in politics, so what does she know about the real world. The Rudd Labor sorry and program has been another waste of tax payers money. They have nothing to show for it except another over costed and undelivered program. Bureaucratic waste and nothing for the people they are supposed to serve.

    • get "Polly" staff stooges off the net, Fsnag. says:

      06:29am | 16/03/10

      i would rather have a govt that is attempting to do something & getting it wrong, than one which either does nothing, or plans for failure, so as to collect even more tax & create yet more bureaucracy & “jobs for the girls”.

    • Scot says:

      10:51am | 16/03/10

      “Polly”, 110% correct. And what is Rudd Labors solution, throw more money at it and no sceam but scams. it is all termed knee jerk reactions. Putting out spot fires. Labor has only one plan a long list of disasters. Where is Tanner and Swan going to get this money from, they are already $1.232 Trillion in debt on forward estimates. And don’t get me started on the NSW Labor, Conroy etc. etc.

    • Cathy H says:

      06:39am | 16/03/10

      The govt’s PPL hasn’t even reached parliament yet. Macklin will have to introduce it now quickly since the Coalition have announced their policy. I wonder if the govt’s PPL would have seen the light of day if Abbott had not announced his plan. More shallow promises from labor. Macklin should spend her precious time on her indigineous portfolio instead of nit-picking the opposition.No wonder this govt hasn’t got anything done.

    • DougB says:

      06:51am | 16/03/10

      The only thing that is confusing is, now that this subject is in the focus of the Australian people, will Captain Reactive aka. KRUDD, suddenly swing all his “people” over to focus on the issue so that the government “appears” to be doing something, while achieving nothing.

      Kevin just plays to the headlines of the day, there is no substance and very little achievement or even consideration of the longer term goals and future of Australia.

      No matter which party comes up with whatever scheme, we, the voter, will still have to pay for it.  What we need is
      a) Convincing that it is a worthy scheme.
      b) Convincing that it will actually happen in our lifetime.

      Both parties need to re-assess their leanings and learnings.

    • Seano says:

      07:00am | 16/03/10

      Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme had “no core” promise stamped all over it.

    • Tom says:

      08:20am | 16/03/10

      You should know Seano. The only thing your lot ever delivered to the Australian people was a budget deficit.

    • Seano says:

      08:54am | 16/03/10

      Tom, I’m not interested in your snide attack, and I don’t have a “lot”.

      The facts are that Abbott’s plan was not approved by the shadow cabinent and required a big tax on big business being put in place by the Liberals.

      So let’s not pretend that this was anything other than a “non-core” promise.

    • Peter says:

      09:00am | 16/03/10

      C’mon Tom, let’s not re-write history. Revenues collapsed as a result of the GFC. Every reasonable Government around the world had stiumulus packages. This is ‘Keynsian” theory of proping up economies when there is a down turn. What this big problem was, that we had a series of economists and government people arrogantly thinking they have defeated the boom/bust cycle. Keynes did say when times are good, Governments should be saving money for the next down turn. The Libs didn’t do this, they just kept spending. Obviously when stimulus was again required, we had to borrow for it…

    • Dick J says:

      10:55am | 16/03/10

      Untrue Peter the LIBS left the largest surplus ever and paid of the ALP’s $96 billion debt. Paying off debt is saving money. Thank god Howard & Costello did leave plenty in the tin. They ran a surplus every year bar one some small some large.

      The tension always is how much do you give back to the taxpayer, how much do you spend and what do ou put away for a rainy day. Swannie want to run in surplus he never will. He can’t because the ALP loves spending other peoples money.

      Presently borrowings and mining are propping us up. Rudd has to decide if he want’s to borrow more. He’ll have to tax us more eitherway .

      if you want to lok at waste look at the shermozzle of the roof insulation, hot water systems, and the BER. How muchborrowed money literally down the tube to scammers. Do you reakon they are decent scammers and pay tax!

      Gillard crows about how happy most school principles are but much possibly half $7b has been wasted on overpriced, rorting and not need buildings .

      I’d prefer it if Rudd & Co saved half of the stimulus- $50billion and kept a proper an eye on our pennies and how it was spent. We’d get more bang for our buck and not a knee jerk overreaction spendathon.

    • Lucy says:

      11:01am | 16/03/10

      @Peter - that’s complete bollocks. The former government left a legacy of no government debt and a $20bn surplus.

      If you actually have a look at the budget figures, you will see that revenue only dropped $4.8 billion. $4.8!!! So, how did we end up in debt? We should have had at least $15billion left over.

      The former government saved billions of dollars. A Future Fund worth more than $60bn and a reduction in debt of nearly $100bn.

      The Rudd Government said there was going to be “wrecking ball” through government revenues, and they continue to say it - but it is a complete lie. The Budget figures - published by the government at http://www.budget.gov.au demonstrate this clearly.

      Just because it is in a press release or 8 second grab doesn’t make it true.

    • Peter says:

      11:29am | 16/03/10

      Yes dick your right, they kept on having surpluses that they kept spending. The only national savings we had was the future fund, but that is seemingly off limits now… @ Lucy, what’s $20bn these days. That $20bn eroded as soon as we struck the GFC. What we need to do is pay off debt, start building more money into the future fund, before we start thinking about tax cuts, welfare for the rich and other things..
      We need much much more in the bank right now. Im not arguing with you as a Labour man or Liberal person, just as someone who know how important national savings are.. just look at China…

    • annie says:

      01:02pm | 16/03/10

      Comrade Peter the GFC was mostly a northern hemisphere problem, but Kevin and co panicked come the next election i’m sure someone is doing the sums on money wasted on virtually ever project started by this government. And it’s not just the Federal spending thats a worry the labor states are just as bad, QLD 4 million people and 50 billion in debt for starters. And you lot mock Joyce!

    • Tom says:

      01:09pm | 16/03/10

      Short memory Pete,
      No need to re-write history. Whitlam, Hawke and Keating all delivered deficits (without a GFC). They are Labor and that’s what Labor does. As for Rudd, any fool can throw other people’s money about and call it Keynesian.

    • JR says:

      01:14pm | 16/03/10

      The obviously Pete you have no problem with Abott’s scheme at all. If $20 Billion is nothing at all, then what is the $2.7 billion the scheme is worth?

    • Peter says:

      01:18pm | 16/03/10

      C’mon guys, your just being barrackers for the right. Hawke and Keating set up our econmony to what it is today. They began the loosening of labour markets (it had to start somewhere), they were the one’s who started to loosen union power, they were the ones who reduced trade tariffs and helped create more competition in this country, they were the ones who did a lot of things. Howard introduced his GST and his Labour reforms that didn’t last 2 weeks. Costello did an outstanding job as treasurer. I give credit where credit is due. Im arguing against welfare and you guys are calling me “comrade”. Well maybe I should be happy in the thought that the Liberal Party is close to falling into the hands of the left and they are dragging you guys along with them… I beginning to think that Tony Abbott is a left wing conspiracy planted into the leadership of the Liberal Party.

    • Peter says:

      01:28pm | 16/03/10

      Annie, I have not once mentioned Joice in these forums, not once, so I know who you work for. Annie I fear you are unwittingly falling into the hands of the left. Can you dream of anymore handouts to win government?

    • Nicholas says:

      01:31pm | 16/03/10

      Peter,

      I’m glad to find someone else with their head screwed on. In the last term of the Howard Government we saw one of the greatest middle income wlefare splurges of modern Australian history. They left nothing for lean times!

    • George says:

      03:14pm | 16/03/10

      @Nicholas - Which end is your head screwed on?  I am not sure you even understand your ‘welfare splurge’ bit.

    • Lucy says:

      05:50pm | 16/03/10

      You completely missed my point @Peter.

      You failed to respond to the fact that Govt revenues barely dropped. The reason the $20bn disappeared was because of the ridiculous and unnecessary spending spree by the Rudd Government.

      And I acknowledge the reforms of the Hawke/Keating era. So did the former government. You would also be aware that when those reforms were proposed in the 80’s/90’s the then Opposition supported them.

      This was not the case with the Beazley/Crean/Latham/Beazley/Rudd oppositions - which opposed the GST, income tax cuts etc etc etc.

      But, they are willing to take the benefit now.

      $4.8 billion drop in revenue yet a $20bn surplus turned into a $28bn deficit. It doesn’t make sense unless you’re an idiot.

    • Peter says:

      08:48am | 17/03/10

      Lucy, your giving me figures that i haven’t even heard Hockey or Abbott make. Let them say it, and i’ll decide if im an idiot…

    • Mark says:

      07:13am | 16/03/10

      Sorry Jenny, and what of value has the Labor Gov’t bought to the Australian people since being elected.

      Hmmm…lets see there was was the opt in internet filter which has now become the mandatory filter, there was price watchand I think fuel watch, the debacle that is the NBN (jobs for the boys), then the hospital take-over (which by the way is another tax as a knee jerk reaction to falling popularity), and also the absolute without a doubt success that was the insulation scheme.

      Ohhh and lets not forget the ETS!!!

      It’s all well and good for you to sit there and tear down Tony Abbott, but you and your party are not exactly sitting there smelling like roses either.

    • persephone says:

      07:58am | 16/03/10

      Rescuing Australia from the worst impacts of the GFC, including saving thousands of jobs?

      Injecting billions of dollars into much needed infrastructure - such as standardising the rail line between Brisband and Perth?

      Providing free dental checks for every teenager in Australia?

      Raising the old age pension?

      Training 150 extra doctors per year, with more on the way?

      Encouraging the use of green energy, with a mandated target of 20% by 2020?

      Buying back water from the M-D system, resulting in water being available for environmental purposes for the first time in decades?

      I’m sure there’s a couple of hundred more, but I’m too lazy to look them all up.

    • vic says:

      09:08am | 16/03/10

      Mark, what is Abott’s stance on the filter? You don’t know because he is keeping conspicuously silent on the issue. None of you Lib supporters have the courage to ask him in public though.
      What did the Howard Government bring to the people? Nothing except lies, removal of freedoms and a complete neglect of Australians caught overseas. What will an Abbott Government bring? More of the same plus religious fundamentalism and a return to the racially divisive tactics the Libs are known for.
      Oh, and what Persephone said.

    • hugh says:

      09:18am | 16/03/10

      rubbish persephone
      “Rescuing Australia from the worst impacts of the GFC, including saving thousands of jobs?” - i believe APRA and the RBA did this through appropriate regulation of our banks and appropriate monetary policy goals, not Rudd

      “Injecting billions of dollars into much needed infrastructure” - like the much needed $900 handout for ps3’s, ipods etc?

      “Providing free dental checks for every teenager in Australia?”
      if you cant afford the 150 a check up, you’re probably not fit to be a parent

      “Raising the old age pension?”
      Wow, great investment in the future. Maybe these old foggies should sell their houses and move into nursing homes. Will free up supply, and give them some cash to burn

      “Training 150 extra doctors per year, with more on the way?”
      Really? 150 is a lot? That is an extra 0.0000075 per person. Great

      “Encouraging the use of green energy, with a mandated target of 20% by 2020?” - this isnt a good thing - we are a resource based economy. youre pretty much telling us to shoot ourselves in the foot by removing the only comparative advantage we have over any other nation in the world

      “Buying back water from the M-D system, resulting in water being available for environmental purposes for the first time in decades?”
      Buying a cotton farm during a drought is a kick in the nuts to farmers. Who gives a rats arse about the environmental flows anyway. I’d rather be able to flush my crap down the dunny than ensure a few trees in an arid area be able to survive

      I got some more - introducing BSE products into our market. Until other countries run an NLIS system like our meat industry in forced to do, we shouldnt accept their crap meat

      We were promised federal control over the M-D system due to the labour connection between federal and state - great win there

      Unions, with an all time low union base, have been given a ridiculous amount of power and sway for their constituents

      Sitting on the Henry Review. Where the bloody hell are you??

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:34am | 16/03/10

      persephone , lets have a look at your list of Rudd’s achievements.
      The Howard/Costello legacy of a surplus & a booming economy rescued us from the G.F.C. not Rudd.
      The old age pension rise was fraudulent. The Utilities allowance
      (Howard iniative ) was paid quarterly ($125)  Rudd divided the amount by 26 and paid the result fortnightly then called it a pension rise. !
      Green Energy ?  Hmmm will this be an E.T.S. outcome too. ?
      Free dental checks have always been available through the State’s Primary Schools system.
      You are too lazy to check your facts too.

    • Peter says:

      10:30am | 16/03/10

      Get Conroy slimy little hands off Telstra. “Subject to regulation” in the prospectus, investor could reasonably assumed that Government wouldn’t be setting up a competing teleco just after having sold one. Investors could reasonably assumed that Telstra would not be prevented from competing in the already competative “wireless” space, and investors could have reasonably assumed that the Government that sold it to them would introduce legislation that would guarantee the distruction of the company, its employees and shareholders. This is a blantant personal vandetta, it makes no sense, why is he doing it? Is he destroying the Australian owned Telstra in favour of these overseas telecos operating here? Just what is his caper?

    • George says:

      03:22pm | 16/03/10

      @persephone - G’day Jules glad you can make it.  BTW can you say G’Day to Karl and Lisa for us next time your there.  While you are at it why not give kudos to the community here at ‘The Punch’.

      On a serious note, one can’t deny the list you enumerated.  Whatever is said about its significane or importance, KRudd’s administration did achieve those things.  However those easy targets were achieved with undisclosed resources, the consequences of which the Australian public is still to endure.

    • Frankie V says:

      04:37pm | 16/03/10

      There’s are Brisbane to Perth rail line?  Do tell, what’s it called?

    • Mark says:

      05:59pm | 16/03/10

      @Vic, I will agree with you on 1 item, and that is the fact the Libs are rather silent on the internet filter, and that scares the hell out of me.

      As for your other rubbish, the Howard Government bought this country back into a healthy surplus after the disgraceful spending of the previous Labor government, which the current Gov’t has happily spent on useless policies, which we all, including yourself will be paying back at higher taxes.

      And as for your removal of freedoms, what do you think his filter will do? If you actually believe what labor has told you then I have a nice bridge you can buy.

      Neglect of Australians overseas? Who? How were they neglected? Did they choose to be overseas, and if your talking about the Corby girl, or even the Bali 9, Kev07 promised to help them out. What has he done to honor that promise?

      And as your your “religious fundamentalism”, what do you think (sorry WHO do you think) is driving the internet filter.

      I don’t need to tear into persephone as the previous people have done a nice enough job.

    • biff says:

      07:23am | 16/03/10

      A socialist complaining about too much social policy. Surely we are now fast approaching the time when it was prophesied that “the lion and lamb shall lay down together”.

    • Peter says:

      07:24am | 16/03/10

      So where is your PPL scheme, Jenny?  Haven’t you been in Government now for more than two years?

      Or was this just another blah-blah-blah- Labor pre-election promise?

    • persephone says:

      08:00am | 16/03/10

      Jenny’s was released last year and will be introduced as of January 2011.

      Plenty of time to get it through parliament, unless, of course, the Liberals insist on being obstructionist.

    • Ben says:

      09:01am | 16/03/10

      Persephone it hasn’t been released yet other than being part of the Rudd government talk fest. And you will note that Jenny disputes your timing by indicating it will be valid from January 2010, not 2011. Just what we need huh, a government backdating payments into an election year! Should buy a few thousand votes from the ‘working’ mothers who worked one day a week in the year prior to giving birth. What a joke, it will give them a raise!

    • eeldraw says:

      10:03am | 16/03/10

      @ Ben,
      I believe Jenny Macklin stated “Our scheme will start on 1 January next year”.
      You do know it is now 2010 right? That would make next year 2011, right?
      Sorry, what was your point again?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      07:43am | 16/03/10

      How sad that Punch only allows comment supporting Macklin’s stance and refuses to publish anything highlighting the gaping holes that exist amongst her other ministerial responsibilities.  Both involve children, so could not be considered “off-topic”.

      If Macklin devoted more time there instead of white-anting Abbott and a not-in-government policy position she may have some veracity in her argument.

    • HM says:

      08:02am | 16/03/10

      18 weeks vs 6 months. It may be in a state at the moment, but I know who I am going to vote for.

    • WKH says:

      08:21am | 16/03/10

      Jenny, how can you talk about funding shortfalls when you are part of the biggest money wasting government in the history of this country. It is a national disgrace! How many millions have you lot blown for no return. The directors of a public company would be long in jail by now. I just watched your small business minister (Craig Emerson) on Skynews. I shudder when I think that this man is a Minister in government. The old “Uncle Arthur” from the comedy company is not dead. What a bumbling fool. Does he think before opening his mouth. For those who don’t no who I am talking about have a look at an old clip. Is he is just like Emerson?  Not much difference..
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_RFAy9naI8

    • Sherlock says:

      08:34am | 16/03/10

      This is so funny. The left actually complaining about a socialist policy that uses corporate profits to pay benefits to the worker. Seriously how hypocritical can they get.

      I’m not a huge fan of the policy but if we’re going to have a paid parental; leave plan this is as good as any. Like most policies there are both good and bad points. It has to be paid for somewhere and I fail to see why business shouldn’t have to pay for it although let’s face it, we all eventually end up paying for it no matter where the initial money comes from.

    • Ryan says:

      09:41am | 16/03/10

      I agree, it is completely hypocritical that the socialist Labor party complain about a socialist policy.
      “The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
      Possibly they are complaining because they are quickly running out of our money with all their failed schemes (read: rorts) and can’t figure what money will be left for a socialist scheme that they wish they had thought up. The part I am confused about is that this one is ripe for Mr “Me Too” to steal and yet he hasn’t, he must be loosing his policy stealing edge.

    • Ron R says:

      08:54am | 16/03/10

      This has “non core” promise from TA written all over it - do you honestly believe the liberal party will increase taxation on business to fund social policy?  - opportunism at its best - whatever it takes to get back in.

    • Lucy says:

      09:00am | 16/03/10

      Ms Macklin, it is hard to know what you actually want. You criticise Abbott for not supporting paid maternity leave when in Government, but now you criticise him for supporting it in Opposition.

      Didn’t you oppose the GST in Opposition, but now support it (and in fact want to raid it for cash) now in Government?

      You said in your article:

      “After all, this was the man who, as Workplace Relations Minister, declared that a paid parental leave scheme would only happen over his government’s “dead body.”

      Well, last time I checked, the Howard Government was “dead”.

      So, isn’t Tony Abbott being entirely consistent with his claim that it would only happen when his Government was dead. Now it is. Presto.

      You demonstrate you are only interested in the politics, and not the policy, when you criticise your opponents for changing their mind - in order to agree with you.

    • Fed up says:

      09:07am | 16/03/10

      After botching up the pink-batts saga, blowing that policy’s budget by thousands of millions of tax-payer funded dollars and killing more Australians than the Gulf War, how can anyone take the Labor Party seriously? If the pink-batts scandal had happened in a business context, unions would have been up in ams calling for industrial manslaughter charges against management. Surprising the unions have been very quiet here. Hmm… and you talk about playing politics Jenny? Your problem is that no one trusts you because you’ve proved to be incompetent. No matter how much you try to deflect the blame onto someone else, the Australian people know. We’re not that stupid.

    • LuckyLady says:

      09:19am | 16/03/10

      Its not only young parents he is driving crazy. Go your local shopping center and talk to people, thats what I did yesterday. Being a baby Boomer I spoke to many women in that age group. No One is pleased about this Big Buisness funded handout. We all know in the long run we pay. We have nothing to gain from this and either do pensioners or empty nesters. While we want the best for our kids and grandkids I think its deplorable to expect us to have to pay for the rest of our lives. Goods and services will go up and many are having trouble paying for electricity bills now. I have read here on previous posts how parents should sacrifise for there adult children. Well how about for a change , these children become responsible for there own lives. Many of us have investments in Australian companies, we will lose again with less dividends. Tony Abbott needs to keep his pants on and start thinking with his brain.

    • Peter says:

      10:58am | 16/03/10

      LuckyLady, Australia needs more women like you. At least you are a reasonable think person who looks at the harsh realities of life. You strike me as a successful person who has achieved things in life as a result of your own hard work, and not because of charity handed over to rich people who don’t need it…

    • Arnold says:

      11:48am | 16/03/10

      LuckyLady, I am confused.  One part of your post (rant?) complains about the price of goods increasing to reflect this new tax, and then the next complains about reduced dividends. 

      I would’ve thought that if the prices were increased to offset this tax, then wouldn’t dividends stay the same as after tax profits would also remain the same?  Or will prices stay the same, and dividend rates decrease as after tax profits decrease?  You really can’t have it both ways.

      Stop being an alarmist and think rationally.  At least the liberal policy has a strategy to generate additional revenue to offset the parental leave costs.  Labor’s strategy consists of taking additional funds from a budget that is already in the red.  That does not sound like smart fiscal management to me.

    • Peter says:

      09:16am | 16/03/10

      It’s not big business who will pay for this. Firstly, It will be the average or below average paid people who work in these corporations who will sacrifice future pay rises so we can give welfare to the rich. Secondly, it will be consumers who will be hit by higher prices so business can claw some costs back (so we can give welfare to the rich) and thirdly when the levy is removed in 3 years, it will be EVERY ordinary taxpayer who will be paying for this, and guess what, those higher consumer prices, they won’t come down either. People will be paying for this several times. I don’t know what these femenist groups are up to, but it time to close the office of women. If these femmes were so concerned about the victimised sisterhood, their attention would have been on stay at home mums living on one income and managing to get by, and not on women earning $150k not willing to make a 6 month sacrifice even for their own children. This stinks. If this goes through, it is seriously time to close down a governement department soley dedicated to cater for the greed of these women. We have a situation now, where men are virtually non-existant in schools, you don’t see many of them working in banks, number of men are dwiddling in universities, in my workplace we have various programs to help the downtrotten women on a $150k or more, but no such thing exists for men. It is no longer equality these people are chasing, it is something else. Women these days are still laughing at this “no fault divorce business” in that no matter what happens the law says its the mans fault and he has to pay. It not equality they are chasing, it is much much more. After this welfare for the rich, it seems to me they want to create a socialist utopia for rich women and a cold unforgiving capitalist system for men. Even in the days when women were so called “not even”, there were plenty of examples of where rich men would go out with, date or even marry a woman who job was no more than a cashier. These femmes these days would brand a man in a similar job a loser, not have anything to do with them, and use the power that the office of women give them to screw that bloke even more, but asking for welfare for the rich. There is no more equality, things have turned 180 degrees and it’s time it stopped. WARNING EVERYONE, THESE WOMAN ARE NOT CHASING EQUALITY, it is much more sinister than that. I wonder what sort of “right” that these femmes and the office of women will come up with next. Im sure they are sitting in their little committees right now try to come up with something to keep themselves relevant. What next???

    • Ray says:

      09:45am | 16/03/10

      You absolutely correct Peter. My scheme is better. Men should be levied $100 per month throughout their working life, the levy to be paid to all women on a tax free gratuity basis on the undertaking THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE AMBIT CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF WOMEN. Male defaulters of the payment be required to spend a night with Sharron Burrows. Recalcitrant and recidivist male defaulters be required to spend two nights with Eva Cox. No parole. All for corrective mind cleansing and other appropriate behavioural induction.
      Meanwhile we could continue to retard boys eduction, and even accelerate the desdparity. I will let women in on a secret. The reason males still gravitate to the top is that fathers tell their boys from an early age you get what you achieve yourself, there are no freebies, and you will have to pay your own way. Tell their girls the same but social induction interferes.

      Western (read Australian) women have lost the plot with their self ordained right to entitlement, are bad role models for their daughters, and frankly need a major wake up call. It’s the same with anyone who is continually given everything. All they ever do is want more. So watch this space for the next female ‘want’.

      Had a gutfull.

    • Peter says:

      10:18am | 16/03/10

      We do give them that $100 dollars plus more. Look at the statistics about who uses our health dollars, its women who eat up the vast majority of it. They have screenings for this, screenings for that, programs for other things. Now don’t get me wrong, I am a believer in good education for all our kids, a universal health care system for our country men and women, these a good patriotic duties, but really beyond that, we shouldn’t be expecting much more from Government, some personal responsibilty must fall into this picture. Really Ron, lets get our male counterparts to call our local MP’s and insist that the office of women be closed down. Now that they have maternity leave and a million and one programs by government and big business to further themselves, we don’t need that office any more. It must close down because this is now becoming an ever increasing burdeon on the rest of us, and our young males will be more disenfrancised than what they are now. In the past, rich men where more than happy to marry a poorer woman, simply because he loved her. Now that we’ve ruined males, and given these position to women, these women still care about their males occupations, brand other males on less money losers, and have nothing to do with them. Things were more equal in the old days than what they are now… It got to stop. We can start this process by getting involved. Lets call our MP’s and close the office of women, this has gone far enought…

    • Arnold says:

      12:02pm | 16/03/10

      You both realise that it is “Parental Leave”, right?  That is, available to men and women.

    • Peter says:

      12:22pm | 16/03/10

      No Arnold. Welfare is welfare, i don’t care who gets its. Rich working people have no rights to welfare. Honestly mate, even now they are still complaining about the 9% super for six months. They are squeezing every cent. I didn’t contribute to my super for 20 years and I am confident I will have enough money when I retire. Rich people are squabbling with their bosses for 9% they won’t get for 6 months. Seriously, we are going to far.

    • Arnold says:

      01:39pm | 16/03/10

      Then why are you so angry at just women? 

      You start your post off talking about welfare for the rich and how it stinks, but then jump straight into closing down a “governement department solely dedicated to cater for the greed of these women”, if the legislation goes through.  Then how men are not working in schools or banks because of women.  Then how our numbers are dwindling in universities because of women.  Then how women in your workplace earning $150k or more are provided assistance when men aren’t (do the women earning less than $150k also qualify?).  Then how women are the big winners in divorce (honestly though, you might actually have something with this one - although I am pretty sure that it isn’t actually written in the law as you claim).  Then how women are trying to create a socialist utopia for rich women (but what about the poor women?).

      Then the big cherry on top of the crazy sundae that is your rant, is your complaint that successful women won’t settle for just anybody.  Why should they?  For that matter, why should anyone settle for someone they don’t want to?  It’s 2010, Peter, get with the times, man.  I mean, I love Mad Men as much as the next person, but those days are over.

      Please though, do educate me on the “sinister” plot that those dastardly women are trying to hatch now.  If you know something, you owe it to all men to share it, so we can prepare ourselves for the coming revolution.

    • Peter says:

      02:15pm | 16/03/10

      Arnold, if you read my messages carefully, i have gone after anyone defending this welfare hand out including you. I am presuming Arnold is not a female name. The reason why I have been attacking what is really organised groups of rich feminists, is because it is them lining the corridors of Canberra seeking these welfare payments. It’s not a group of organised men Arnold. Im sure you can see that. The reason I asked for the office of women to close is because they have nothing left to do now if they get PPL. Now if we allow that office to continue operating, they will coming up with a new set of rights that they think they will be entitled to. The battle has been won, in fact there are a lot of young men who stand to lose a lot. We should be looking after them as well. Have you ever heard of a male polititian entering Government just to look after men? No, but that all these female pollies do, is just look after woman and they drag the rest of parliament with them, because our male pollies fear getting branded all sorts of names by them. Our elected representatives should be looking after everyone, not just one sex. I am not a woman hater, far from it. This has gone so far that the law now absolutely discriminates against young men..

    • Bon says:

      02:26pm | 16/03/10

      I really wish you guys would stop generalising women.  Ray - as a Western (read Australian) woman, I would really like to know what exactly it is that makes you think I am a bad role model for my daughters (and not my son), and why I need a wake up call.  Since you obviously know so much about what the women of Australia are thinking and feeling.

    • Ray says:

      03:54pm | 16/03/10

      Bon, don’t know if your a bad role model for your daughter but women generally are. They project their self ordained right of entitlement throughout and produce clones of the victim mentality. As for a role model for their boys, women (mothers) endorse an education system that grossly discrimintes against boys. I don’t profess to know Australian women are thinking. That’s a mystery and no-one could profess to have such insight.

    • Ray says:

      09:19am | 16/03/10

      We can talk about money short falls or non-core promises or welfare for the rich. The underlying factor here is the absurdity of the Westminster system that, going by Australian standards, is all about buying women’s votes not responsible economic mangement. No sour grapes, but I am appalled as a father, the amount of sacrifices my wife and I made to bring up our children with bank balance going from black to red every fortnight. Amounts to nothing, now retired, that I still pay taxes to support women with their self focus on themselves in championing such schemes, and all the other reproductive welfare. Also, I don’t need reproduction to provide population replacement to pay for me in retirement, I pay for myself.  Over all history has never seen a more priveleged group than western (read Australian) women. They have such a mindset of entitlement that they cannot step outside the square to recognise their conceited self centred mentality, aided and abetted by shallow politicians seeking their vote. Any poll reflects the majority don’t want this welfare policy. Also, in closing, I have never seen a group more subject to culpable social demise than Australian males. This maternity debate often brings up that Australia leads the world in education of women but fails in maternity provisions. Where do we stand on the education of males, or is it inversely proportional to the way you educate women. Then on the other hand DO WE CARE.

    • Peter says:

      09:45am | 16/03/10

      Well said Ron. We need to get on the phone to our MP’s and start demanding as a first step that we close a whole governement department just dedicated to these rich “downtrotten” women. The Office of Women must close because there will be no end to the amount of rights they will keep creating for themeselves. A so-called Tony Abbott “gaffe” of refering to woman as housewives has resulting in him handing out $3 billion. Funny thing is though, genuine housewives would not have taken any offense whatsoever, happy being at home raising their kids, loving their kids, not resentful at them because the boss is not paying them 9% superannuation for the six months they are at home. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t start contributing to my super for 20 years, but I am still confortable that I will have enough when I retire. What MORE do these women want??

    • Arnold says:

      12:30pm | 16/03/10

      Ron, your post is full of contradictions.  In one sentence, you talk about women having, “such a mindset of entitlement that they cannot step outside the square to recognise their conceited self centred mentality” almost immediately after complaining about the sacrifices you and your wife had to make to have children, and getting nothing from the government for it.  So, because you didn’t get anything, nobody else should.  That sounds fairly self centred to me.  Maybe we should take the vote away from them too.  After all, that is how it was done in the good old days!  And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right?  Damn women!

      Then you go on to complain about how you are still paying taxes to support these women.  I say that if you are a self funded retiree you are not paying any tax, as your income stream is tax free.  The only way it is taxed is if it a Commonwealth Super Scheme pension, which is fully funded by the government (handout?), and for which you get generous rebates (middle class welfare?), or if you have invested inefficiently in your own name, rather than superannuation.  If it’s the former, you are doing ok as you will never ever have to worry about investment markets plunging, and if it’s the latter, it’s your own fault for not getting adaquate investment advice.  Maybe those damn women were taking up all of the financial planner’s time.  Damn women!

      And since you don’t need “population replacement” to cover you in retirement, I suppose you have fully funded and maintained private roads to get you around?  Is it in good shape?  If so, do you think I could use it?  It might be better then the one’s I use every day.  Or has a woman come on to your private road, and demanded it for “them”?  Damn women!

      You are right though.  “Western (read Australian) women” have way too many privileges.  We should convert to Islam ASAP, so we can put these women back in their place!  I mean, who do they think are?  How can they not see that they are taking all of our rights away.  Nothing a good bashing wouldn’t solve though, right, Ray?  Damn women!

      PS.  Would it kill you and Peter to use paragraphs.  I know that the education system is failing us men, what with all these women groups dragging us down, but surely you guys have read some books.  You must have at least read this article.  It must have been so confusing, having all these random breaks in the story.  Damn women!

      PPS.  Damn women!

    • Peter says:

      12:55pm | 16/03/10

      Arnold, in the last 20 years of paying tax, ive probably got back much less than one half of a week using medicare. The rest 19 years 51 and a half weeks, has gone to government coffers. We shouldn’t be paying tax on the expectation of us getting it back. It is there if we fall on hard times only. I don’t use paragraphs to justify my entitlement to welfare and maybe the public school I went to didn’t give me a sense of entitlement to other peoples money. But as long as you write in paragraphs, you can justify just about anything you want in your pursuit of welfare dollars you don’t need…

    • Ray says:

      01:49pm | 16/03/10

      Arnold, I could call you a mental pygmy but that would be playing the player not the ball.

      For a start women only missed out voting in the first three Federal elections , voted in 1907, but heh, lets live in the here and now not a century ago.

      I have organised my finances properly (and my wife’s) and if she lives longer than me as usually women do, she will have all my super or she can divorce me and cash out early if she encounters a ‘cougar fantasy’. Luckily I am married to a rare respectable, responsible female who, wait for it, respects men so I have no fears.
      Your take on roads needs clarification but indicates your use of roads goes round in circles until you disappear up your own or i face.

      Well, with Islam they (reportedly) educate their men better than women so why shouldn’t we celebrate educating our women better than men. Not sure where you get the right to imply bashing of women.

      Anyhow Arnold, I have tried to go as slow as possible and use monosyllabic terms to aid your comprehension. Alternatively you have concealed your inteligence that well that I commend you. You certainly had us fooled.

      You are right on one count though. I and most men have had a gut full of women and their endless priveleges. And let us continue retarding our boys, even accelerate it if you please.

    • Willy K says:

      09:53am | 16/03/10

      Isn’t it amazing how the media in Australia focus almost totally on the opposition!

      I know we have one of the most politically biased media in the Western World but it is getting ridiculous.

      How about some scrutiny on Rudd and the ALP’s plans given that they are the ones that are actually IN government!

      Kevin Rudd is a very weak and visionless leader that is clear to all.  This government while it does have the worst financial record of any Australian government in one term ever still has not been more insane or incompetent than Whitlam.  However these governments are neck and neck now and when the facts about the hot-water system debacle, and the TRUE insulation scam facts come out - the KRudd government will be dead in the water and will stink like no other government in any of our lifetimes had ever stunk.

    • John Sample says:

      10:00am | 16/03/10

      Labour Government have absolutely screwed me because of my situation. I earn $130k and my wife $65k. We have a decent mortgage and are expecting our first child in July.
      Firstly Krudd takes away the baby bonus, then he takes away a subsidy for obsetritions, he jacks up private health insurance and then we miss out on any type of maternity payments. My work are offering me 1 week unpaid paternity leave, really generous.
      I know we earn more money than most but we are by no means wealthy, we don’t do big holidays and certainly are not floating in money. His idea that middle class are all OK is rubbish. I wish he spent time in the real workforce battling a mortgage.
      I pay so much tax and get so very little in return it makes me sick. $900 cheques, BATs and School renovations are just the tip of the iceberg - I have a feeling my new child will paying off Krudd’s huge (inefficent) spending spree.

    • Peter says:

      10:36am | 16/03/10

      There are people on much much less money than you, not compaining about hand outs. Please lets not go too far. We will have BIG issue to deal with as our population ages and we don’t need more welfare for the rich. Australia must start saving money for the future, not spend it…

    • Grandma says:

      01:18pm | 16/03/10

      John Sample…Since you mentioned it, if you’re earning $130,000 a year, you can afford to go without government assistance if your wife chooses to stay at home when she has the baby. On that sort of high income, you really don’t need the Baby Bonus or any help with doctors’ bills. Gosh, I’d love to earn $130,000 a year, if I did I’d be floating in money for sure. I get so sick and tired of well-off people moaning about money.

      Try living on half that amount and you’d have to be a bit careful with your money.  Try living on a quarter or less than that amount and then you can maybe cry some hardship. If you and your wife are currently earning $195,000 a year between you, then you should have been well able to put enough money aside by now to cope with the cost of having babies and parenting time at home.

      Well I suppose you’ll just have to get used to a change in lifestyle…so welcome to the real world where the vast majority of people live.

      Oh BTW, Rudd’s stimulus spending is supporting the economy that pays you a very high income. I really don’t think that anyone on $130,000 a year has too much to complain about.  And of course you’ll miss out on government maternity payments…you don’t need them..!!

    • gavin says:

      02:08pm | 16/03/10

      Wouldn’t you love to break free from your triple figure income and become a single pensioner. They even get discounts…and public housing! I’m sure they wouldn’t swap their lives even for $150K!

    • a different sample... says:

      03:29pm | 16/03/10

      My combined household income is less than your wife’s.

      The missus and I have 3 kids that lead a happy, healthy life with very little to complain about and the only thing they go without is rampant consumerism.

      If you are struggling on $195K, it is time to seriously re-evaluate your lifestyle choices…

    • Tails says:

      10:10am | 16/03/10

      I’d love to meet some of you guys who make these comments to see what you’re really like in person one day.
      I have this mental image that persephone is a giant glazed ham with arms and a pineapple ring and glace cherry face that sits there all day at his pc, mashing the keyboard while trying not to leak ham juice all over it.

    • NickyG says:

      10:32am | 16/03/10

      Tails, that was beautiful. I couldn’t have put it any better my self. Love it!

    • Peter says:

      11:27am | 16/03/10

      Attack the messenger girls and not the facts. A typical feminist tactic that is wearing very thin…

    • Tails says:

      12:54pm | 16/03/10

      I’m very much a bloke Peter. But thanks.

    • persephone says:

      01:00pm | 16/03/10

      Good lord, they had lousy Classical Education teachers back in your day, Tails.

      At least I’m familiar with the culture which invented democracy.

    • Tails says:

      03:09pm | 16/03/10

      Persephone. Democracy is like totally about giving everyone a choice ‘n stuff and going with the consensus yeah?  Some shizzle about by the peeps/for the peeps, yeah?
      I’d say your definition involves the right for everyone to have an opinion, as long as it’s the same as yours. Which sounds a shizzle load like something different Mein Fuhrer.
      So, you’re familiar with the culture that invented democracy. So am I. But from the sounds of it, your experience doesn’t venture much further than eating the odd gyros.

    • Arnold says:

      03:18pm | 16/03/10

      Um, Tails, I could be wrong, but I think Persephone is alluding to the fact that she is a woman, so really couldn’t be sitting “all day at his pc, mashing the keyboard…”.

      After all, Persephone was the Queen of the Underworld.

    • Jonathan Appleyard says:

      10:39am | 16/03/10

      Labor left wingers and trade unions coming out criticising Tony Abbott’s plan just aren’t believable. If Labor’s scheme was so certain, where is the legislation?

    • Labor's scared says:

      10:40am | 16/03/10

      What a piece of garbage this article is. It clearly shows that the Rudd Labor Government is concerned only to hold onto power. And to think rather than attacking opposition policy they could be trying to implement some of their own.

      Attack, attack, attack but don’t actually do anything because the things we have done have been a complete failure.

      Macklin, why don’t you try to do something to impress the Australian people? So far your government has been an abject failure.

      You guys must be running scared to resort to this type of sad article.

      Anyway, have you got a new job lined up for 2011 yet? Trade Union secretary?

    • Norma says:

      10:44am | 16/03/10

      Since Labor have announced their own parental leave scheme, which is to be up and running Jan 2011, Abbott’s scheme is really a non-issue. It is pure politicking, and each and every Labor politician, economist, political opinion writer has fallen for it hook line and sinker. Tony outpoliticked the master on this occasion.
      Unless Jenny you are planning NOT to introduce your legislation in time for the promised Jan start?

      O/T, I’d like to congratulate you for sticking to the guts of Howard’s NT intervention policies, in the face of pretty intense opposition. Shame about the bureaucratic bungles, but I put the blame for these at the very top. Your boss and his close associates ain’t got a clue on how to actually do stuff.

    • Angus says:

      10:58am | 16/03/10

      yes it was a bit of grandstanding designed to shift the focus onto the coalition. i also note you say yours is up and running next year which is a bit of a fib. the word tax is mentioned several times and how that affects business, but i think the reality is that under the labor plan we all pay for the scheme. that’s right the cost is distributed amongst the populace through how? mmm i’ll take a wild guess and say through tax receipts, which is where the money from the baby bonus (that labor is morphing into maternity/parental leave) already comes from.

    • Peter says:

      11:50am | 16/03/10

      Angus agreed, it was a bit of grandstanding, they all do it, and it costs us all. One thing, please stop passing off a 3 year business levy as something that will pay for this maternity leave scheme. After 3 years, when people working in this big business make sacrifices for rich welfare recipients, after 3 years of higher consumer prices that won’t come down after the levy is removed, the burdeon will be on the ordinary tax payer for ever. I can tell you the only group not to lose a single cent from this scheme will be big business itself and their shareholders (they will just recoup it from elsewhere). The rest of us will pay…

    • Anjuli says:

      11:05am | 16/03/10

      I am from the old school if you had children the mother stayed home for at least till the child turned 5 .Now a days both parents seem to need to work so why can’t government sought out some parential leave say basic pay for 6 months or double basic for 3 months parents choice.

    • Raelene says:

      11:09am | 16/03/10

      To Ray 10.19 am. I am female and agree that lopsided funding and legislation is aimed at women. As a woman and I am embarrassed at the on-going predominance women have over men in social order.

      I have a son and see little future for him in a world where his opportunity is continually compromised in this manner. I encourage him and then he will come home from kinder school with some derogatory put down from feminist ideology that seems to take precedent over basic areas of learning.
      The girls are indoctinated into being superior and detrimental in respect towards males. I see this reflected in my own circle of female friends who see males as a necessary or unavoidable embugerence and brag at the way they have cleaned them out in separation.s

      Yes we are going down the wrong path. I hope it changes.

    • Peter says:

      03:40pm | 16/03/10

      At least you understand Raelene. As I said in previous messages, these Feminists must be laughing at no fault divorce, in that no matter what happens its the mans fault and he has to pay. How is that “no fault”?. And yes I am aware of girls who laugh at it, just like your friends.

      I am seeing a clear picture of women raising young sons with similar concerns to yours.. We need people like you to stand up, just as there were men willing to stand up for women. We should be chasing a fair go for all, not one group successfully screwing another…

    • Henry Ackroyd says:

      11:17am | 16/03/10

      Loved Abbotts performance on Four Corners last night.  Despite an incredible attempt at a hatchet job.

      My favourite quote was that “...Abbott defeated his boxing opponent by imagining it was Bob Hawke…”!

      Whilst I would love to get in a ring and take Hawke and Keating apart how good would it be to take on Kevin Rudd??  He would not last 10 seconds.

      My fantasy!  Go Tony give it to these tofu eating, latte sipping, smoking ceremony, ALP tossers!

    • Peter says:

      02:43pm | 16/03/10

      I saw Abbott sipping Lattes at the Office of Women before announcing his PPL… Henry, Tony Abbott is a left wing conspiracy planted into the leadership of the Liberal Party. All hail those on the left, we are about to take everything!!!

    • JVL says:

      11:20am | 16/03/10

      It is quite sad to see so much time being spend on Mr. Abbott when he is clearly making a lot of noise just to get attention. It is even sadder to see so many people agrees with him without sound reasoning. The Prime Minister (Mr. Rudd) might not have done a spectacular job, but at least he is doing something; that is more then what most poster (not all) have demonstrated here, that being all complains and no suggestion. Perhaps that reflects a good deal about the nature of the current generation, that fact alone might eventually get Mr. Abbott his Prime Ministership. However just wondering what that might get us (the people)? I suspect it will be next to nothing.

    • greig says:

      11:25am | 16/03/10

      tony abbott may have solved our future overpopulation problem. people wont want kids in case they turn out like him.

    • Mark says:

      12:02pm | 16/03/10

      Bingo

    • Ray says:

      11:34am | 16/03/10

      Does Jenny macklin read these comments for public feed back.

      If so Jenny, it’s pretty clear that both Labor and Liberal schemes should be flicked. Men should be brought into main stream society. Boys should be given equal opportunity in education. And finally with the privelege of your editorial luxury you should have the decency to repond. Particulalry on when the first policy particulalry focussing on benefits to men and boys will see the light of day. May be you could transpose the genders in proposed policy and see if it seems fair, starting wiith the Discrimination(Against women) Act.

    • Peter says:

      12:00pm | 16/03/10

      Good point Ray. Jenny, what work, as our elected representative do you propose to do to ensure there is no discrimination against men? Is there anything you willing to do Jenny? Is there just ONE thing your willing to do Jenny? Or are you just sipping your latte’s with your friends in the “office of women” trying to come up with your next lot of rights? Please Jenny, please tell us ONE thing you are willing to do for our young boys growing up in this very unequal society of ours? Please tell us Jenny, your meant to represent us all.. Just ONE thing??

    • Cricketor says:

      03:49pm | 16/03/10

      Many many Australian do NOT want the Liberal scheme as the polls show. Including me

    • exzilerate says:

      11:54am | 16/03/10

      Jenny, the Pensioners of Australia say thank you for all the Rudd government has given them. Abbott opposed Pension increases and if elected would quickly erode gains made under a more compassionate Labor government. Tony Abbott is not to be trusted by any Australian Pensioner - period ! Thanks once again Jenny !

    • Helena D says:

      03:59pm | 16/03/10

      I second that, my elderly mother 87 years old. is on a pension. She lives in New South Wales the pensioner unfriendly state. She can’t afford Tony Abbott and either can I . In summer she overheats and cannot do without the AC in winter she feels the cold badly. I help with her electricity bill. Ohterwise she would be starving. She knows Labor has helped her and she will vote accordingly and so will I

    • G says:

      12:03pm | 16/03/10

      Bewildered, parents-to-be rightly have no idea what to expect from an Abbott led government, aside from more confusion and a whopping new tax.

      Yeah and those of us who’ve decided not to have kids once again get to foot the bill for those who do!  I’m sick of working 50+ hours a week for some breeder who can’t afford to have kids, yet I get no incentive what so ever for not being a burden on the health and education systems.

    • Mike says:

      12:21pm | 16/03/10

      Jenny, a great indicator of future performance is past performance. And with all due respect where does that leave you and your leader? To say that you are throwing stones from inside a huge glass house would be the understatement of the decade. As far as Aboriginal welfare goes you should be ashamed of the job that you have done and should hang your head in shame. You then have the temerity to criticize a guy like Abbott, who has been involved in community services for years, makes you wonder just how much spin you think the Australian people would fall for. Here’s an honest question that requires an honest answer - What have you ever done for any community that did not involve politics?

    • The Dove says:

      12:46pm | 16/03/10

      @Peter                                                                                     20 % of the posts on here are from you. Either you have too much time on your hands or you are a Coalition stooge.Your comments about women speak volumes about your character.If I was to take a pot shot I would say you are probably single (divorced) aged between 45-50 failed in business renting and blaming the fairer sex for all your ills. If you want to dish it out Pete than you have to be able to cop it.

    • Peter says:

      01:31pm | 16/03/10

      Wrong on all counts Dove. I am 39, a high school drop out, in a happy relationship with a girl who doesn’t like welfare, sucessful in business (that’s why I have time to do this), paying off my mortgage like the rest of you, and if you read some comments about me on this page, others are calling me Comrade? What a bizzare world we live when those arguing against welfare get called Commies. At least you were half right to call me a Coalition Stooge, because I thought I was coming across as a right wing nut even though im a slightly left leaning independent…

    • Nicholas says:

      01:44pm | 16/03/10

      This isn’t about left policy or right policy. It’s well planned policy. Clearly we have examples of poorly planned policy on both sides.

      1. Abbott’s turkey of a maternity leave policy has clearly come out of the oven too early. Jenny Macklin is spot on here.

      2. Labour has something to answer for in the botched insulation scheme.

      Lets not argue about giving bad policy credit for being bad policy where it is due!

    • The Dove says:

      02:03pm | 16/03/10

      @ PETER                                                                     Peter,sorry mate if you are a left leaning indepedent by your own definition than Eric Abetz is a socialist. I have no problem in the eternal arguement regarding welfare but I am curious and stand by my previous post about your views on woman e.g “WARNING EVERYONE, THESE WOMAN ARE NOT CHASING EQUALITY, it is much more sinister than that. I wonder what sort of “right” that these femmes and the office of women will come up with next. Im sure they are sitting in their little committees right now try to come up with something to keep themselves relevant. What next??? ” Sorry Pete you can’t hide whats in black and white.Your arguements are driven by emotion and what would appear to be resentment,again e.g ” Jenny, what work, as our elected representative do you propose to do to ensure there is no discrimination against men?. As a male living in this country Pete what discrimination are you subjected too other than your own mind.

    • Ray says:

      02:29pm | 16/03/10

      Hey Dove, try the Family Law Act, Sex Discrimination (against women) Act Education and Life insurance for a start. Then go on to every Federal State and Local Government Department and enquire on their gender equity. Should keep you busy.

    • Peter says:

      02:31pm | 16/03/10

      Yes Dove, I stand 100% behind what I said, it’s all in writing here, just like you said, im not going anywhere. My point Dove is this, men have all but been eradicated from the teaching profession (which has caused problem in schools that I won’t even begin going into here), walk into a bank Dove and see who works there, don’t take my word for it. We have government programs for women, our education system targetting our women for special/additition treatment, we have our businesses having their own programs for women.. Now don’t get me wrong, i don’t have an objection to these. What I am saying is now that if rich women get PPL don’t you think this feminist war has now been won? Don’t you think its over? The problem when you have a government department dedicated to such things is that they will come up with never ending programs and rights just so they can exist. Im not saying lets go back to the 1850’s, but the battle has been won, not only has it been won, they even have an “unconditional surrender” by “over my dead body” Tony Abbott. I don’t want anything taken away from Women, but i don’t want to see our young men suffer in the long run either. Its not equality they are seeking anymore, its something else, but we just have to wait to hear from the office of woman as to what that something else might be… Yes I have been emotional about this welfare handout, but I also had to attack those who line the corridors of Canberra persistantly asking for it…

    • julia says:

      02:02pm | 16/03/10

      Hello, Pot. What colour is that Kettle?

    • Ray says:

      02:15pm | 16/03/10

      Hey Arnold, the name is ‘Ray’ not ‘Ron’. Pleased to meet you. Please read my response above. I value women as all organisations should. That value of women to organisations can be readily measured by calculating the value of males to the organisation (never done) and halving it. Other than that create quarantined jobs for women as was done in my Federal Government employ so that their promotion can be accelerated. Meanwhile ensure all your post graduate employees are female. And offer 2 apprenticeships for girls from 6 applicants and 4 for boys from 200 applicants so that you can maintain a 3:1 chance for girls and a 50:1 chance for boys. Then ensure the Apprentice of the Year is a girl as the apprentices are advised they can self assess for a boy to come 2nd. Check ACT Elecricity and Water to verify. Meanwhile give your purile refute a rest.

    • Angie says:

      02:37pm | 16/03/10

      As opposed to the poor indigenous communities you have turned your back on since the groundbreaking “apology”. At least Abbott gets his hands dirty and Howard did something. ALP is not a friend of the people, simply about power.

      Jenny who? The three-time deputy never aspiring to leadership of ALP. Irrelevant.

    • Peter says:

      03:04pm | 16/03/10

      Angie, you are half right. They are ALL just interested in power. And then we have oppositions (Labour or Liberal) who’s job it is to just oppose everything even if its good for the country. Time we all elected independants and get these parties out of Canberra…

    • Brian Connor says:

      03:17pm | 16/03/10

      Take a look at the resume of any ALP Federal (or State) MP - give me one example of anyone who has anything but experience in academia, media, council, union, ALP staffer or industrial relations lawyer ?

      Where is the private sector, real world experience? None, Zip…...head in the public trough for a lifetime.

    • Peter says:

      08:55am | 17/03/10

      Your right Brian, I would love to see both parties populated with workers and bosses. They can do all the squabbling in Parliament and just allow the rest of us to go about our business… No acedemia thanks, not to many lawyers (although unfortunately we need some), and no left/right wing barrackers. Just people who want to do well for our country…

    • The Dove says:

      03:07pm | 16/03/10

      @ Peter,
      Teachers,bank employees? Whats the arguement Pete?I agree that PPL should not be based on paying the rich and aiding the rich. I just can not get past your ideology regarding feminists. The arguement is about balance yet all your posts are related not at policy but “evil feminists”. For the record I am a 38 year old male who loves a beer ,loves a blue and as you can probably see loves an arguement. You need to stick to the policy arguement Pete,its benefits and its pit falls not continually crusade against what you percieve to be inequalities of gender. Limited experience Pete creates limited perspective.You need to recognize that in our current time and space that you will always find areas of the workforce that are dominated by women by virtue of the fact that men traditionally of decided to avoid these professions, I am suprised your not complaining about a lack of male nurses or male check out operators as well. Any way Pete all the best I have to go and pick up the boy from school. And by the way my wife and I never recieved any PPL but I would like to see it so those who are having kids can spend a little more quality time with them early on. Surely as a father Pete you can understand this point.You are a father Pete are you not or is your perpective based upon being a tax payer? All the best!!!!

    • Peter says:

      03:27pm | 16/03/10

      No a father yet Dove, but not far off. Im just a bloke from a working class family, who minumum wage parents managed to get by raising 4 kids and there was no PPL. The company I work for offered some PPL, I have no objection to that, but i do object when it comes out of the tax system and is directed to the rich. Like you, i enjoy a beer, the company of women and delight in spending time with my nieces and nephews who’s mums had no PPL but I don’t recall hearing any complaining either. Yes my “ranting” if you will might sound like an attack on all women, but it is not. I also enjoy a blue like you do. Im 39 so maybe I have one more years experience than you do, but as I can tell from your message, you and your wife managed to survive without PPL. Is it really as necessary as some would have you believe? Should we be tapping on the shoulder of Government just because we have to do a small sacrifice for 6 months.. I want Government to run the country, not the smallest details of our lives… Any all the best to you to. If I run into you in another forum, i will say hello…

    • Binglebee says:

      03:46pm | 16/03/10

      Omg are they giving this to prostitutes to? This is ridiculous and how much do they earn a year ? I doubt we can afford to pay for them

    • Ray says:

      04:00pm | 16/03/10

      Hey Bon (Bon?) 3:26 pm, please read my response above. Australian women need a wake up call because they have priced themselves out of thew market with their self centred demands. As said in my reswponse they prefer the sisterhood over the interests of their sons. As for their attitude to men we don’t have the time space or inclination to go into detail.

    • Bon says:

      01:37pm | 17/03/10

      Thanks for your reply Ray.  I don’t know any women who prefer the “sisterhood” over the interests of their sons, or any of their children.  To suggest that women prefer their daughters over their sons in any way is unfair and not true.  What exactly is the “sisterhood” anyway? Something you read about in a newspaper or academic journal?  There probably are women like the ones you describe, ‘feminists’ who are self centred and have a ‘what’s in it for me’ attitude.  But I don’t know any.  Most of us are just trying to get on with our lives, take care of our children, balance our budgets, run our households, nurture our relationships with our partners.  We don’t have the time or the inclination to be worried about what we can stick the government for next, or to think about how much more we can do to stuff up society for our boys (since we love them less than our daughters).

      I do not endorse an education system that discriminates against my son.  So far my own experience of the education system is limited as he has only a couple of years of schooling behind him. But he is doing fantastically well, thanks in large part to the wonderful, dedicated female teachers he has had.  I do know that there is vast room for improvement in our education system and that boys have particular issues, which need to be addressed.  There does need to be a greater focus on programs to help boys, as well as girls. I do know that there is a shortage of male teachers, and a lack of men entering the teaching profession because it is not attractive to them as a career option.  I agree that this is not fair to our children - I had some wonderful male teachers myself, at school and university.  I don’t have the answers for these issues, but just because we are female doesn’t mean that Australian women (particularly mothers) don’t care about these things.

    • Peter says:

      02:42pm | 17/03/10

      Bon, i can tell you that the lack of male teachers has nothing to with it not being an attractive career choice, it has everything to do with them being “spooked’ out of it. One false allegation by a teenage girl (probably taught by her mother) and he is finished. Finished as a teacher, finished as a human being,  just finished.  That’s the kind of feedback i am getting…

    • Bon says:

      03:45pm | 17/03/10

      Peter - maybe you are right.  I do know that male kindergarten/early years teachers are a rarity, and that there are some people out there who view men in these roles as suspicious.  Being a kindy teacher is still seen as women’s work, much the same as nursing.  Men are just as guilty as women of labelling men in these roles unfavourably though.

    • Stefano says:

      06:47pm | 16/03/10

      Now, what’s that comma doing in your headline, Tory?

    • Liz Christie says:

      06:40am | 17/03/10

      Jenny Macklin,you have been judged more than once as one of the most underperforming ministers…how have you held on to your job so long? Is Kevin protecting you in return for your unwavering, mindless support?iYou will never have to worry about your financial situation. Let’s say you really did get lucky, unlike many struggling mums who perhaps work much harder than you. Keep your hands off Tony Abbott’s parental scheme, or encourage your party to match it. And by the way, you are not paid to denigrate the female members of The Opposition Party.

    • Peter says:

      09:14am | 17/03/10

      Gimme gimme gimme, Abbotts offering more money, must be a great idea for the country. Don’t worry that we are heading into an era of high health costs, a large aging population to look after, just gimme gimme gimme because I want it now. I know im not poor and i don’t need the money, but this is feminism. We feminist deserve to live in a socialist utopia while the rest of you chumps work hard for me. Gimme, I deserve everything and I have rights…

    • Peter says:

      09:06am | 17/03/10

      Interesting story if someone wants to read on. I recall many years ago I read in the paper (i believe it was the Herald Sun) a judge castigating a man in a Family Law court telling him “This is not Italy” in response to reasons for his pending divorce..

      I currently work with a gentleman, and by the term gentleman, I mean gentleman… He proudly served in the Australian Army, he currently serves in the Army reserve, a man who would lay down his life for his country. He never complains, he works hard and he his always pleasant. He is divorced and happily making his contributions to his family with no complaints. I recall in a conversation with him, he did mention to his wife that perhaps she should go to work, to which she replied “I love the latte lifestyle”. Every court in the land would support this woman.  Like the judge said, this is not Italy, but we are getting pretty close. If the current Law treats a man like this with distain, then where are we going? Is there some more equality that the Office of Woman are working on now? Jenny? Any more equality just around the corner??

    • Ray says:

      04:34pm | 17/03/10

      Bon, thanks for your comment above. What I am saying abour education is that we arrived at the present situation with culpable intent. Your son is doing well and congratulations to him, but across the board boys are underperforming at a greater rate. Of course those with memory fade will deny the culpable intent when the framework for this outcome was implemented (with no regard to the impact on boys). But the intent in education, and the intent in general to retard men’s progress at the expense of women, is so culturally embedded that it is now just routine. If a name such as Sue Vardon comes to mind she was the CEO of ACT Education in the early 90’s who proclaimed in the Canberra Times paper, that she would have no hesitation to use education as a means to combat social inequities she saw in society. Charming. I retained the newspaper clipping.

      The sisterhood is the equally charming unofficial bretheren that supports all things to advance women regardless of the impact or inclusion of men, be it sons, partners or fathers. Unfortunately our society has a littany of examples that demonstrate such insular thinking.

      I believe history will judge us very poorly on boys education. Something like the stolen generation, child migration, and mystery holidays for pregnant young girls separated from their child up to the 60s. All seemed good ideas at the time. But in hindsight?

      Bon, I and most men have just simply had a gut full of the one sided love affair society has with women. Education, family court, criminal sentencing for same crimes, health, and the littany of handouts for reproduction and all associated costs are just starting examples. A symbolic example is that twice a year where I take our family to dinner at the local FAMILY club, male stripper nights for females are blazened in advertisment at the front door . Of course my explanation to my daughter and son’s inevitable questions is probably difficult in trying to say why treating males in that manner at a family endorsed venue is acceptable.

      Anyhow Bon my strong belief is that presently we never give men credit for their family contribution. Men are deliberately cast as monsters in most social miscreants, and that our vast resources of young men are being wasted with tainted education structures.

      Meanwhile, we should stop the plethora of handouts assoicated with reproduction, revert to a balanced support, and give mainstram support where it is needed in support of Aboriginals for example. 

      But above all give women a wake up call from the slumber of their self ordained proclomation as the superior species.  Our species is one. not one of gender specific division.

      Cheers

    • Bon says:

      09:46pm | 17/03/10

      Ray, I understand a lot better now where you are coming from. although I don’t agree that society necessarily has a love affair with women, or that we women believe we are superior to men (although no doubt there are some women who do have that attitude, just as there are many men around who still believe they are superior to women). 

      The example you give of the inappropriate advertisements at the local club is indicative of the rise in the sexual objectification of both men and women in popular culture, something that should be concerning to all of us, so I agree with you there.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

Federal government MP is going all kinds of crazy places to get Oz a UN Security Council seat. Next up: Gabon? http://t.co/i2mHmITH

Daniel Piotrowski

Sorry ex-premier, I'm not paying for your lunch. http://t.co/Kg0G8PBl

ToryShepherd

SA. It's the middle bottom bit. (PS I think I heard that phrase on @triplej, apologies for nicking!) http://t.co/YOhdLSlj

Lucy Kippist

Complimentary packing, free childcare & convenience aplenty. Thats what i want from the supermarket. How about you? http://t.co/FV4tgjji

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

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… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter