Prev
Next

Abbott the progressive?

Chris Gardiner

by Chris Gardiner

10 Mar 05:35am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

75

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

48

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

186

Filed under: Election 2010, Families, Maternity Leave, Tony Abbott

107 comments

Which political leader has just adopted a policy to champion the rights of working women underpinned by progressive taxation? Not the Social Democrat, Kevin Rudd, but the Conservative, Tony Abbott.

Abbott's plan is the best deal available for mothers.

I have dumped on the term ’progressive’ in a previous Punch piece, but I suspect that’s how many would have described Tony Abbott’s maternity leave policy if it had been announced by Kevin Rudd.

You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you accept the importance of parental engagement with a child in the first year of that child’s life. The policy with the longer period of paid maternity leave is a better policy.

You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you think that a drop in income is a disincentive for a new parent to stay at home. A policy that continues income at the level the parent has been relying on up to the point of the birth is a sensible policy that is more likely to be taken up by the intended beneficiaries. It is better than a policy that insists that every parent receive the same minimum maternity leave payment, no matter how many of them will actually go backward.

You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you think we should be moving faster to ensure working women have increased opportunity to honour both their parenting and career aspirations.

Finally, if you think that it makes sense to properly fund a new policy, and that capacity to contribute is a good criterion for any new tax, you will like Tony Abbott’s policy. My first thought on hearing that this policy would be funded by business was that the broader community should not seek to transfer our shared social obligations onto businesses. But the reality of this policy is that it would simply introduce a new step in a progressive tax system, and at the right end. The wealthy and powerful will always seek to pass on such taxes through product and service charges, but not all of the costs will trickle down.

I am perplexed by the responses of some business group representatives to Mr Abbott’s proposal. Some of these have previously been happy to accept the burden of a carbon emission impost as part of their broader responsibility to the common environmental good, but are apparently unwilling to accept a levy that targets the common good goals of workplace equality and early childhood quality of life.

Like most political leaders facing an election, Tony Abbott has previously taken the pledge not to raise taxes. So it took courage to decide that he would change his position in favour of a substantial reform - a potential defining and legacy reform - that the community needed to know, in advance, would require a new tax. I think such a decision is usually described as a ‘hard decision, but right decision’ that we elect political leaders to make.

It’s possible that Tony Abbott made a mistake in adopting a policy without fully consulting all of his shadow cabinet or his party-room. It’s also possible that this policy commitment will further signal to the electorate that Tony Abbott is a conviction politician, and that he is the political leader who is fair dinkum about ‘working family’ focused social reform.

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
247La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
186The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

107 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Me says:

      07:07am | 10/03/10

      Anybody who feels “threatened” by homosexuals is not a progressive in my books.

      This policy is entirely at odds with Liberal party philosophy, you can bet, almost without a doubt that it is one of those non core promises that, should the Coalition win the election, will be taken out the back, shot, and never heard from ever again.

      Reply

    • BULMKT says:

      07:46am | 10/03/10

      I knew Rudd was a Progressive, but I didn’t think (until now) that Abbott is one too. This is a bad policy.
      Abbott proposes a 1.7% levy (TAX) on any company with a taxable income over $5m. If this is introduced it’s only a matter of time before ALL companies pay this levy. You know this and I know this. I also can’t work out why Abbott has made himself a target of increasing taxes. The opposition has had the Government on the ropes over the ETS, the possibility of more taxes to “pay for health” and what may be lurking in the Henry Tax Review. Now you’re painted with the same “let increase taxes brush”.

      This is the type of socialist policy you’d expect to come from Europe, not the conservative force in Australian politics. This is a bad policy.
      So if a woman should have more than one baby, does that mean they get 6mths off for each one?
      Unless Mr. Abbott is going to lower the company tax rate, then this is a terrible policy. Is he going to get rid of FBT? You had better have something for business (Here’s an idea, if a business wants to pay for their employee’s private health insurance, make it FBT exempt!)

      Big business will pass the cost onto the consumer, which means small business so either way, we’re all going to pay. You also say that this Levy (Tax) will be removed once the budget is in surplus – sure, like a Government ever relinquishes a tax! Whether it is a Labor or Conservative Government – once the Levy (TAX) is in play it will never go away!

      Governments of both political bent have got to stop taxing the bejesus out of the wealth generators of this country – the businesses. Are you purposely going out of your way to alienate business?
      Add to the fact we are living with higher interest rates and the Risk of an ETS, why go after the wealth generators of this country?

      Does Abbott want to see more of Australia’s business leave Australia and set up shop in HK or Singers??
      This might a vote winner for the “working families” but this policy stinks on ice for Australian Businesses.

      Reply

    • JH says:

      04:32pm | 10/03/10

      we already have large number of ‘socialist’ policies, eg, medicare levy, PBS, baby bonus, even the ‘dole’ is a solicist policy. We pay taxes (as to businesses) to fund government social initiatives, so to label this as somthing differient than every other social benifit is ingorant

    • chris says:

      11:08pm | 11/03/10

      JH,  thanks for your comment.

      One other popular socialist policy was to concentrate on things other than “the 3Rs” in our education system. I can see that not only are you a supporter of that policy, but one who has personally benefited from it.

    • Wombat says:

      07:48am | 10/03/10

      The Mad Monk is about as progressive as Attila the Hun.

      Reply

    • halberstram says:

      09:18am | 10/03/10

      Australia moves deeper and deepr into welfare dependency with this move : The career academics, activists and public servants who push this stuff really ought to take a long hard look at who creates the wealth and jobs in this country.

      Here’s a tip: It’s not the acamedics, activists and public servants!

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      09:31am | 10/03/10

      At every turn Abbott is smashing Rudd. 

      Rudd is the bible basher.  Rudd does the church doorstop interviews.  Rudd is against gay marriage.  Rudd has stated he is a ‘Christian Socialist’.

      Rudd has no ideas, no skills, and Australia while he ‘leads’ us has no future.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      10:29am | 10/03/10

      Er…what?

      Abbott is the ex seminarian. Abbott visits George Pell, an Archbishop, for advice. Abbott is against gay marriage and finds gays ‘threatening’. Abbott has continually put his religious beliefs ahead of the needs of the community.

      Rudd has introduced a huge health policy, a national curriculum, a parental leave program, etc and would be doing even more if the Senate wasn’t so obstructionist (the most obstructionist in Australian history).

      Abbott has a two word solution for health which doesn’t even cover the majority of Australia, a Divert Attention plan which won’t tackle climate change, is uncosted and will raise emissions and now a badly flawed parental leave program.

      He couldn’t even keep an election promise long enough to get to the actual election.

      He’s a bantam weight.

    • Henry says:

      11:10am | 10/03/10

      Nice try.  Rudd has done jack.  PM Blah Blah.  Just hot air and inane grins.  Krudd is THE epic fail in the pantheon of ALP epic fails.

    • persephone says:

      11:38am | 10/03/10

      Great defence of Abbott there, Henry.

    • Andrew says:

      11:52am | 10/03/10

      Great defence of Rudd there Persephone

    • persephone says:

      01:48pm | 10/03/10

      Thanks, Andrew.

      Yes, I referred to actual policies that Rudd was delivering, rather than simply trying to bag Abbott.

      A pity you can’t defend Abbott by doing the same.

    • Andrew says:

      03:12pm | 10/03/10

      Yawn. Another revisionist attempt by a labor fundamentalist to try to justify the rudd governments ever expanding list of failures.
      Admit Persephone TA has you on the run.

    • persephone says:

      03:23pm | 10/03/10

      Andrew

      I have challenged you to defend Abbott by listing his achievements.

      You obviously can’t do it.

      End of story.

    • Randal says:

      03:24pm | 10/03/10

      Er… what Perse?

      Rudd is a fervent Christian who carries a Bible around in his top pocket for inspiration and nearly wept over the canonisation of Mary McKillop. He believes that marriage is for a man and a women and is opposed to Gay marriages. Rudd spends more time in Church and at door stops out the front out front than a Priest and even claimed to have directly lobbied the Pope to have Mary McKillop canonised.

      So which is the religious zealot??

      As for policy:

      Rudd’s health policy is new bureaucracy, with no extra money, no extra beds, no extra doctors, no extra nurses and his pay by operation plan will see many regional hospitals under financial duress and potentially close. It also fails to end the blame game and as we have seen with the bickering between Rudd and the States a promise was long ago broken.

      A parental leave program that was nothing more than a re-direction of the baby bonus, unlike Abbott’s proposal that actually assists parents financially and directs funds to this end.

      The Rudd education program fails to address the issues within the classroom, access to educational aids i.e. Books and greater numbers of teachers of a higher quality and instead builds halls no one needs, fails to supply computers promised years ago and then names and shames schools without offering any support to improve them.

      As for the ‘Greatest Moral Challenge’ of our time, Climate Change Rudd won’t even say those words in public, whilst the Abbott proposes a direct action plan geared to actually make a difference and not just create a ‘money-go-round’ that actually fails to address emissions.

      Yes there is a difference between the two men, Abbott is for direct action, understands what it takes to govern and how to get the job the done.

      Rudd on the other hand has publically admitted to the job of government being ‘harder and more complicated’ than he thought and spends most of his time apologising for litany of broken promises and Ministerial failings.

    • Andrew says:

      03:43pm | 10/03/10

      Persephone, see comments by Randal. Couldn’t agree more with him.

    • persephone says:

      03:50pm | 10/03/10

      See, Andrew? That’s how it’s done.

      Obviously now Randell’s here the work experience boy has been let out to have some lunch.

      Which is the religious zealot? Obviously Abbott. Rudd doesn’t try and impose his own views of right and wrong on the rest of us. He deliberately stepped back from a caucas discussion when he realised his religious beliefs were clouding his judgement. Abbott, on the other hand, doesn’t have any judgement to begin with.

      Abbott’s health policy introduces a new level of bureaucracy which costs more money and does not employ a single new health professional or put any extra money into the system.

      Rudd’s deliberately undercuts the power of bureaucrats, contains a clause to halt a rise in their numbers, delivers more money to hospitals at the coalface where it’s needed. He has other policies - most are already being implemented - which are designed to train more health professionals and encourage them to move to areas of need.

      Abbott has no education policy, so anything Rudd’s doing puts him way ahead. A national curriculum supported by over 90% of voters; a computers in schools program which is being progressively rolled out; direct employment of high achieving graduates and education experts in schools of need across the country (one of my best friends has been seconded by the Feds to improve numeracy standards at a local school), just to begin with.

      A real climate change policy, which would achieve real emissions reductions, unlike Tony’s DIvert Attention from Climate Change plan.
      A sensible, well thought out and financial costed parental care program, arrived at after consultation with industry and other stakeholders, not simply plucked out of the ether because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

    • Randal says:

      04:40pm | 10/03/10

      Appreciate the complement perse, but I am afraid I have just been hard at work trying to earn a quid and as I always have stated I have no affiliation with any party.

      The issue with all of Rudd’s policies are simple, they are big on rhetoric and small on delivery, put simply all talk and no substance and when the going gets tough he packs up and run’s aka “Climate Change”.

      Measurable difference is what the electorate seeks and not hyperbole and Mr Rudd may well feel the effect of that frustration come polling day
      .

    • Andrew says:

      04:45pm | 10/03/10

      Persephone, completely unconvincing as usual.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:32pm | 10/03/10

      I don’t think Andrew is able to form an intelligent or articulate list of Abbott’s achievements. But then again what is there to list? As for Randall’s running list. What is your point, that Abbott continually harps but has no alternative policies.

      Rudd’s health policy does away with state departments so it actually lessens the bureaucracy. Rudd has already put nearly 500 million dollars into the states health systems. Unlike Abbott who cut funding by 1 billion dollars when he was health minister.

      Abbott’s so called direct action plan is nothing more than a farce and a token gesture. Plant 20 million trees, woop doop! Hawke planted 400 million. The idea of a climate change policy is to curb bad practices and change our dirty ways of energy for clean. Abbott’s plan is “Business as usual”. So tell me what is the point? Abbott will blow between 15 and 45 billion dollars of taxpayers money on a scheme that increases our CO2 output by 13%. Now whether you believe in climate change or you are a sceptic, it’s irrelevant. The point of a climate change policy is to lower our emissions, not increase them! So lets go over that again for you Randal and Andrew because you seem a little slow on the uptake. Abbott’s using taxpayer money to allow businesses to increase their co2 output and when they exhaust their limits he will fine them and then they will just pass the cost onto the consumer. And at the end of the day Abbott does not offer one cent of compensation unlike Rudd’s scheme that compensates 91% of the population.

      And the only reason it is harder for Rudd in government is because he has a dimwitted, policy inert, politically inept opposition leader who has done nothing but carp, obstruct and assert negativity to all things not suggested by the Liberal party. What is it about you arrogant buffoons that makes you think that even in opposition you should be governing. The Australian electorate threw you out for a reason. In their time in government your beloved Liberal party squandered a resources boom that netted them in the vicinity of 330 billion dollars in tax revenue. 20 billion went to surplus, 60 billion went to future funds (health, education and infrastructure) even though all three were crumbling from twelve years of neglect. The other 250 billion dollars went to unsustainable middle class welfare, one off cash splashes and pork barreling.  Economic conservatives, pig’s arse. Economic charlatans more like it.

      And in the matter of 24hrs Abbott has managed to flip flop or contradict himself four times on the one policy. In all my years I have never witnessed a politician screw up some much on the one policy.
      1. “Paid maternity leave over my dead body”. Then announces the most over paid maternity leave any party has ever seen. I won’t bother going into how bad this policy is for the economy, investment, employment or productivity other than to say it is fiscally and economically irresponsible.
      2. Only a month ago he was carping on about “Great Big Tax” Every sentence started with it and every sentence finished with it. ( By the way, whilst the ETS was a tax, the majority of Australians were getting compensated. But why let the truth get in the way of a good lie). Now he wants to inflict a “Great Big Tax” on big business. Oh sorry that’s right it’s a levy. ‘A Great big Levy”
      3. In a business forum in Brisbane only two weeks ago he stated that under a coalition government “There will be no new taxes”. Which is probably why he called it a levy. But where not that stupid are we! Sorry, my apologies to Randal and Andrew. Some of you are.
      4.After berating Mr Rudd for not including his ministers in policy formation, what did Malcolm, sorry, Tony go out and do. The exact same thing. After making the point that he would always be inclusive of his cabinet in policy decisions, Tony decided to fly solo. Now there’s a mental image we don’t need.

      And forgive me for pointing out that you are more than adequately ill informed, but Tony has not cemented any of his “thought bubbles” into actual policy. So the man that you see as a man of direct action, I see as a man of procrastination. A man of little conviction and even less discipline.

    • Randal says:

      09:08am | 11/03/10

      Ah Evan, I can understand your anger and frustration, you waited 11 long years for a chance to run the nation and what did you get a do nothing government so incompetent that they cannot even arrange for the fitting of insulation without putting a million homes at risk.

      Then again the ‘True Believers’ have always been easily pleased and no doubt you have swallowed the Mea Culpa, “government is really hard, sorry we let you down but we will do better” line from the PM hook line and sinker.

      Should that be ‘True Believer” in your case Evan or just “Truly Naive”.

      I think the latter suits you best.

      Oh by the way if I have offended you Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa is what I have for you… there that should make everything better now.

    • persephone says:

      10:21am | 11/03/10

      No ‘mea culpa’ is what Tony says to his cabinet when he invents policy on the run.

      ‘A million homes at risk’—did you know, Randal, last year exaggeration went up by a billion per cent? Or are you having a Barnaby moment, and compulsively adding zeros?

    • Randal says:

      01:57pm | 11/03/10

      Good old perse, even trying to blindly defend the indefensible, no I meant a million, that is the number of homes that were affected by the failed and dangerous roll out and potentially put at risk.

      You know the drill perse, we heard it often enough… 1 million homes assessed, 240,000 found with faulty or insufficient insulation, 1000 with electrified roofs, 94 confirmed house fires, thousands out of work, dozens of companies on the brink of collapse and 4 deaths…

      No need to exaggerate there, I think in this case the numbers say it all, yet the Minister keeps his jobs, quite a mob you have installed in there in Canberra, they seem just as dangerous as the insulation they peddled!

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:07pm | 11/03/10

      Well Randal I am quite content within myself as we are in government and will be for sometime, especially while Abbott is at the helm of opposition politics. And if Mea culpa is your best argument then so be it. Not all that riveting and certainly a little lack lustre for intellectual debate. But what else can I expect from yourself. By the way, how is that maternity policy going? Or should I refer to it as an investment in human capitol. Lol.  You conservatives are strange but extremely comical. Good for a laugh.

    • cs says:

      09:38am | 10/03/10

      I though Abbott was going to be a tight fisted NO NEW TAX man but then he totally redeemed himself and we have this!!!!. He might as well give a reduced amount to every mother not just working mothers. And get rid of the STUPID baby bonus!!

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      12:37pm | 10/03/10

      I think he called it a levy not a tax. hahahahahaha

    • Liz Aitken says:

      09:50am | 10/03/10

      You cannot compare the committment of business on ETS to that of maternity leave.  The ETS would allow many businesses the opportunity to invest in energy efficiency, is effectively levied based on the purchasing decisions of corporations and individuals, and will improve the planet (all people).  This paid parental scheme is levied on a small portion of businesses, they have no choice in ewhether or not to “spend” the funds (ie it is a tax), will only improve the lives of a small proportion of the Australian population, and one has to question what the marginal benefit of the scheme really is.  People will continue to have children regardless of what the government says or does…  the ETS is about changing behaviour in consumption.

      The reality of this is position is that it is a populist ploy to buy some votes, could never be funded and is poorly thought out.

      Reply

    • Felicia says:

      09:58am | 10/03/10

      In my opinion I think its time Tony Abbott gave his apology. This man was an ex Catholic Priest where is his apology as alternate PM to those abused by the Catholic Church. I have heard ramblings of his daughters virginity and his sex life but no mention of the thousands of people in Australia and world wide that have been abused by Catholic Priests. The lives never recover and they carry the memory of that abuse to the grave.
      I also think its very unprogressive to feel threatend by homosexuals, when he came from that Catholic enviroment, where abuse to young boys is prevalent

      Reply

    • George says:

      10:13am | 10/03/10

      @Felicia - you wrote “I also think its very unprogressive to feel threatend (sic) by homosexuals, when he came from that Catholic enviroment, where abuse to young boys is prevalent”.

      Is the ‘Mea Culpa’ really Tony Abbott’s responsibility just because he is Catholic, I mean KRudd is the PM and the Catholic priests who may have perpetrated those sexual abuse are Australians as well aren’t they, why can’t KRudd do the apologising, he’s good at it! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

      Question for you - If you are from a home where your mother is beaten senseless regularly in front of you and your siblings ( if you have some) by your father just because she hands him his beer bottle the wrong way, does that mean that you should not feel threatened by that act of violence if you witness it later in life? 

      A level headed person, exposed to that violence, will abhor it and feel threatened by it and perhaps do something to eradicate it and not simply deny it or shoot down another person for stating the obvious becasue its ‘hip’ to do so!

    • JR says:

      10:18am | 10/03/10

      Pardon? When was he a Catholic Priest?

    • halberstram says:

      10:26am | 10/03/10

      Abbott clearly confuses paedophilia and homosexuality.

      It is priests he should feel threatend by not gays.

    • Kim says:

      12:44pm | 10/03/10

      @ halberstram:10:26am | 10/03/10

      Actually, it’s Felicia who has confused paedophilia and homosexuality when she said:  “I also think its very unprogressive to feel threatend by homosexuals, when he came from that Catholic enviroment, where abuse to young boys is prevalent.”

    • Frankie V. says:

      02:48pm | 10/03/10

      In my opinion I think its time Felicia gave her apology. This woman was christened in the Protestant church - where is her apology for the Thirty Years War???

    • DG says:

      10:02am | 10/03/10

      1. “You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you accept the importance of parental engagement with a child in the first year of that child’s life.”

      Is that a direction? If I believe in the importance of parental engagement I “will” like the policy? I simply believe that if you can’t afford to have kids, don’t. I can understand the point of a baby bonus, setting up for a new stage of life can cost a few dollars. It makes sense that the govt would throw in a few dollars for a contingency. Paid maternity leave is a nice way of saying “We will pay for your lifestyle choices”. I disagree with that.

      Here’s a novel idea, Allow people to sacrifice up to 5% of their pre-tax income to go to a “parental leave” fund that they can draw from if they have a baby (or any time after 40 years of age). where the income tax is payable at the date they choose to draw from the fund. Also allow persons to deduct from their super during any “maternity leave” period.

      2. “You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you think that a drop in income is a disincentive for a new parent to stay at home.”

      Wrong again. I agree that a drop in income is a disincentive for a parent to stay at home. If they don’t want to take a drop in income don’t stay at home. If you choose to become a parent, take responsibility for the consequence of your lifestyle choices.

      3. “You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you think we should be moving faster to ensure working women have increased opportunity to honour both their parenting and career aspirations”

      Now this one I disagree with on principle. We should not be trying to make sure that everyone gets everything that they want. People (men and women) need to learn that you have to make choices in life and sometimes those choices are mutually exclusive. If you choose to have an expensive lifestyle you need to work to maintain it, if you want to have kids you have to keep them alive until they are 18 (you can either do it your self or hire someone else to do it). I choose to come to work rather than take time out to realise my dreams in other area’s. I certainly don’t think that my employer or the State should fund my decision to take a year or so out to pursue other interests.

      4. “Finally, if you think that it makes sense to properly fund a new policy, and that capacity to contribute is a good criterion for any new tax, you will like Tony Abbott’s policy”

      Ignoring the fact that I don’t think that it’s a good policy, I do think that capacity to contribute is a good criterion for taxation. I do agree that when the population demand certain services they must be willing to pay the taxes required to fund those services. This doesn’t mean that only those those who believe in the service have to pay, If the democratically elected government introduces a policy, the whole population should pay, in proportion with their capacity to pay.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      12:49pm | 10/03/10

      DG agree with 2, 3, and 4.  I agree with half of point 1. 

      I can’t understand the baby bonus.  If it is your choice to have a baby, then thought must be put into how to pay for that baby. If I was to think about having a baby now, I would sit down and do an expenses sheet.  This would include, pram, baby capsules, nappies, food, medical bills etc.  If someone wants to have a baby, why should we the taxpayer pay them anything?  This is their choice and as such should be paid for by them.

      I do however agree with your thoughts on saving 5% of their salary to cover this.  This makes sense - unlike the baby bonus or the 6 month paid maternity leave.

    • Drew says:

      10:14am | 10/03/10

      Make no mistake about it, big businesses will pass the cost directly onto consumers. The absolute truth is that we ALL pay for this tax.

      And what are we paying for?

      We are paying for those who did not have the foresight to plan and SAVE for their family.

      We are paying for those who are having children they can not afford to support for an appropriate period of time (ie. 18 years, NOT 6 months). That is how long it takes to raise a child.

      We are paying for those who are middle-class, earn a reasonable wage, but have spent all their savings on a new car instead of saving for their children’s future.

      If you thought the baby bonus encouraged reckless unplanned breeding it doesn’t hold a candle to this policy.

      If you don’t have the common sense and the means to support a family, you are not ready to start one.

      Reply

    • Brad says:

      11:28am | 10/03/10

      Drew, you are paying to be part of a community. Pretty simple really. And i didnt take any joy in taking the governments support until i read your post. Now i will smile each time a payment is made as i realise that part of it comes from my good friends Drew and Marlee. Cheers guys!

    • Keith says:

      10:18am | 10/03/10

      Tony Abbott knocked backed the ETS, claiming it was a great big tax on everything.  Then he wants to put a great big new tax on business. 

      Chris Gardiner points to some supporters of the ETS, who do not support Abbott’s maternity leave proposal, and says he finds that perplexing.  Why, Chris, isn’t Tony Abbott’s position as equally as perplexing?

      No, Tony Abbott is not a progressive.  He’s an opportunist.  He’s not a conviction politician.  He’s a populist.  He’s not being courageous.  He’s engaging in a cynical vote grab.

      Reply

    • Portia says:

      10:36am | 10/03/10

      But Chris, Mr Abbott is not proposing a TAX, he is proposing a LEVY.  And the use of weasle word hair-splitting is the measure of both the man, so plain speaking indeed!, and the politician.

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      10:48am | 10/03/10

      Its either paid maternity leave so that Australians can actually afford to have children whilst working and attempting to retain a roof above their head OR continuing massive influx of third world refugees to keep our very low population growth better than replacement.

      Helping Aussies afford to have children OR third world migrants.  That is the brutal reality.

      Abbott is standing up for Australians and all you pathetic whingers ought to be ashamed.  The goalposts have shifted since the one income days.  People need almost 2.5 incomes to have a roof and have children.

      I know what any intelligent Australian would prefer and Abbott has got my vote.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      11:09am | 10/03/10

      Can’t feed ‘em?
      Don’t breed ‘em.

    • Andrew says:

      12:03pm | 10/03/10

      Tim, your comment made me laugh out loud.
      But…. the current problem is the people who should be having kids aren’t and those that shouldn’t are.
      Long term (generational) welfare recipients are pumping out future long term prison inmates as fast as possible whilst educated middle to upper income earners (read tax payers) who can not count of significant government support shun the idea of having children. This policy encourages the right people to have children.
      I know this is politically incorrect but it is reality.

    • Me says:

      12:49pm | 10/03/10

      Actually, the reality is that it is not up to you or anybody else to determine which people are “the right people” to have children, Andrew.

      Your belief is more consistent with big government communism than anything else

    • Kim says:

      12:57pm | 10/03/10

      @ Andrew.  Maybe we should be looking at how to stop the stupid people breeding then.  I agree totally with Tim.

      My partner and I have 4 children.  The youngest ones (twins) are now 13, so we missed out on the baby bonus and the 18 weeks paid maternity leave etc.  We found it extremely difficult especially with the twins, to make ends meet, but we did it.  Without help from the government and without help from our parents.  Budgeting is the key - something I don’t think our government knows much about.

    • persephone says:

      01:53pm | 10/03/10

      Andrew

      Compusory sterilisation of the unworthy working class next?

      How - and who - determines who should be having kids or not?

      Some of the best parents I know wouldn’t qualify by your criteria.

      And btw, welfare recipients pay tax.

      Educated middle to upper income earners are no better at parenting than anybody else. (They’re better able to buy their kids out of jail terms if necessary, however).

      Money and education don’t guarantee happiness and they certainly don’t guarantee good parenting skills.

    • Andrew says:

      03:30pm | 10/03/10

      Let’s go to the other end of the scale Persephone. 90% tax rate for those people who you claim are rich, those nasty high income earners who perpetuate the proletarian pain. You know the guys who work in mines or start small businesses.
      Lets go further, anyone who excels lets name them, walk them down the streets and public lash them for creating value.
      Let’s get into schools and tell our kids mediocre is best. Give everyone a prize for attendance and reward the indolent parent who contributes nothing to society.
      Oh, i forgot, that’s pretty much labor policy already.
      OK, I’m a (insert insult here) for stating the truth. Sorry to offend everyone’s politically correct agenda, but I’ll let you in on a secret, I’m just saying what everyone knows from the boardroom to the beach, rats breed rats. That’s the way it is and the way its always been. Here endeth the lesson.

    • persephone says:

      05:03pm | 10/03/10

      Andrew

      You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to the ‘lower classes’.

      To dismiss a whole class of Australians - and even worse, their children - as worthless is fairly extreme.

      A fair few of those you’d have dismissed in the past as useless have gone on to become decent members of society, probably of more real use to their communities than you are to yours.

      And no, I don’t agree with taxing people at 90%, although the USA did this for quite a few decades without apparently putting off the wealthy from accumulating more money.

      It seems that you can’t win an argument using logic and evidence, so you resort to hyperbole.

      I’m quite happy to let people see what kind of person you are and then to reflect that you’re here represeting the Liberal party.

    • Andrew says:

      06:18pm | 10/03/10

      Pers, ring ring ... ring ring ...“Um hello”, “Yeah hi, is that Pot”, “Um yeah I’m Pot” ... “Oh its me Kettle, just called to say ‘your black’, see yah”
      Yet to read anything you’ve written worth reading but great to know how far under your skin I’ve got.
      BTW I’m not “representing” any party, just my personal views.
      Thanks again for telling how to think and act. We all need our labor nannies to tell us what to do.
      I hope your not operating without a net, conclusion jumping can be really dangerous.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:56pm | 10/03/10

      And why do people need 2.5 incomes to keep a roof over their head! Because Howard and Costello introduced the First Home Owners Grant. A very good policy should the country be in a recession as it is stimulatory. But when your housing market is running along fine and needs no intervention, why would you inflict one of the most short sighted, artificially stimulating and inflation bearing policies. It has driven the housing market to the point, as you correctly point out, where most people can longer afford the Australian dream. Eventually demand will subside and precipitate a correction in an overly inflated market.

    • Andrew says:

      07:14pm | 10/03/10

      “Most people can’t afford the Australian dream”. That is just BS. I notice you tried to sidestep the Rudd governments doubling of the home owner grant as in times of economic trouble its ok.
      You can’t have it both ways.
      By the way, I think the first owner grant is bad policy as well.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:44pm | 10/03/10

      Andrew did you even read my comment? I said it was a good policy for times of economic hardship, like we have just been through. Hence why Rudd doubled the amount to keep the market afloat and tripled it for new homes to keep employment stable. Hence why it is stimulatory, hence why it is good for recessions.

      Howard introduced it during a boom. Irresponsible and stupid, like you!  Not only did you vindicate my point you also managed to share with the blogging public that you are illiterate, have a short memory and was obviously educated during the Howard years as you are unable to interpret simple sentence structure.  And you want the electorate to vote Liberal!

    • persephone says:

      10:11pm | 10/03/10

      Sorry, Andrew, hate to disappoint you, but you’re nowhere near getting under my skin.

      I only ever get upset when someone I respect criticises me, so it’s unlikely you ever will.

      However, I am always completely astounded by people who are prepared to write off large sections of the Australian population for whatever reason.

      If you don’t like Australians, Andrew, may I suggest there is a very simple remedy?

      (And btw, I find it really, really hard to believe that the life story you have assigned to yourself is real. How could you do all that and not really have experienced anything? My best guess is that you’re a privately school educated twenty year old, still at Uni.)

    • Andrew says:

      10:54pm | 10/03/10

      Typical, you can’t understand criticism so you just attack. I’m illiterate am I?
      It must be such a difficult cross to bare to be the sole repository of knowledge.
      BTW the increase in the 1st home buyers grant during the “GFC” directly translated to a commensurate rise in entry level housing.
      You don’t have spew vitriol against anyone who disagrees with you, it just paints you as intolerant and closed minded. Of course that’s just my humble “illiterate” opinion.
      Anyway great to see the left is worried.

    • Andrew says:

      09:49am | 11/03/10

      Pers, unlike the labor spin machine I don’t assign myself life stories. If you can’t handle the truth that’s your problem. I know it is easier for you to imagine I fit in to a category you despise.
      Truth is I’ve seen a great deal more than the average person and have formed my political views myself without the need to follow some dogma set down in the “true believer” handbook.
      Once again you feel the need to attack me personally because clearly the government you so zealously support is a complete failure and indefensible.
      I must admit I am a little flattered firstly because you obviously find my achievements so remarkable you can’t fathom how someone could do them and secondly, Oh, to be twenty again.
      To bad your so closed minded and bitter about other people’s success. Typical Labor. Don’t encourage success, push mediocrity.

    • persephone says:

      10:27am | 11/03/10

      There, there, Andrew. I believe you.

      It’s just astonishing that someone could have such a broad life experience and remain so close minded.

      But that’s quite an achievement, so you can still feel proud - most people learn something about life and human fallibity as they leave their twenties, but you’re still charmingly naive.

      BTW, interesting article here, demonstrating that there is very little difference between the costs of an ETS on big business and Abbott’s Great Big New Tax on Everything:

      http://www.smh.com.au/environment/abbotts-parent-tax-as-costly-as-carbon-for-big-polluters-20100310-pzdz.html

      Must make you so proud to be supporting a policy which goes against all your core beliefs in this way.

    • Marlee says:

      10:56am | 10/03/10

      Saskia If you can’t afford children , its simple don’t have them. There are many people around the world who want and need a home. Why should Big Business and Aussie retiree’s who invest in these companies in order to make a living for themselves pay for your children? Grow up and take some responsibility for your own life. Stop depending on other Australian workers to fund your child bearing with the baby bonus. We don’t owe you or your children anything

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      11:17am | 10/03/10

      Noone owes anyone anything that is true and agree.  However, the West is getting swamped by the third world because our society is geared up to be too hard to afford 2.5 children.  The goal posts have shifted dramatically in the last few years. 

      This is positive welfare is there ever can be such a thing.

      Australians need to be free to breed more to keep our our superior bloodstock! smile

    • Me says:

      12:49pm | 10/03/10

      Sounds like an ill educated argument from a racist bigot to me Saskia

      “keep our superior bloodstock” pah, your kind does not belong in a western liberal democracy, you might be more at home in totalitarian states like Iran.

    • DJames says:

      01:03pm | 10/03/10

      Saskia,
      If you are representative of Australian “superior” bloodstock, the Australian education system has a lot to answer for.  Just a tip, but if you want to appear intellegent,  try saying less.

    • DJames says:

      01:34pm | 10/03/10

      DJames, Note to self…intelligent is the correct spelling (always pays to proof-read).  Perhaps the influx of third world migrants is affecting my “superior” typing.  Thoughts Saskia?

    • Willy K says:

      11:28am | 10/03/10

      Just as we have sold our businesses and jobs down the river to Asia, then buy their goods back, you lot are happy to sell our National Identity down the river and bring in 100’s of 1000’s of third world migrants to keep our population up and retain our tax base?

      You must be mad.  Any policy that helps Australians have children in their own country is better than the massive social unrest and financial cost of these migrants.  You cannot have it both ways.  I am all for the stopping of migration and worrying about Australians for a change.

      Its a shame that a large group of Australians care more for economic migrants from the third world than their fellow Australians who have helped build and shape this nation.

      You are a sad, pea hearted bunch of twits. 

      Abbotts’ plan is revolutionary.

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      11:44am | 10/03/10

      Spot on.  The same twits here telling their fellow Australians to ‘suffer’ are the first to whinge about third world migrants wrecking our society.

      You can’t have it both ways.  Just look at Europe if you want to see great nations utterly ruined by poor planning/low birth rates then massive influxes of third world migrants when things get to crisis point.

      It will happen here very soon if we don’t make a stand and enable people to have children much more easily.

      Think for your country for 5 minutes.

    • Martin G says:

      12:09pm | 10/03/10

      Plans like this only work if there is appropriate investment in public infrastructure. The once-mighty Murray-Darling is struggling under the weight of our current population as it is, as is our health system.

      If Australian Governments want to implement such ‘family-friendly’ policies, tax dollars must be re-directed appropriately and not wasted on crap such as dodgy foreign pink batts, ‘green loans’, and unnecessary new school halls.

    • Tim says:

      12:10pm | 10/03/10

      If its a choice between more third world migrants or more bogan ferals, can I choose neither?

    • Willy K says:

      01:51pm | 10/03/10

      Not really Tim as Australia’s tax base is shrinking rapidly as we are hugely weighted to baby boomers who will require welfare from the workers.  We need population increase, migration or shoot the boomers. Love to do the 3rd option but first option is the best.

      By the way it is yuppies and dinks that don’t breed - bogans are breeding like rabbits - hence why Labor gets so many votes.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      07:05pm | 10/03/10

      And Willy K, the reason yuppies and DINKS don’t breed is because you are all gay!
      Don’t you just love a stereotype…....

    • Dilligaf says:

      11:36am | 10/03/10

      I got a baby bonus of $500 when my daughter was born and I got $14 per fortnight in child “endowment” payments even though I was a single, low-income earner and I was very grateful for both.  Marlee is right - if you want children, regardless of the economic situation, you have to be prepared to pay for them yourself.  I had to.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      01:02pm | 10/03/10

      Dilligaf - obviously you didn’t pay for them all by yourself.  You received a $500 baby bonus and you received $14 per fornight in child endowment.

    • Martin G says:

      11:43am | 10/03/10

      Poor stuff, Abbott. Surely you learnt from Turnbull about the follies of:
      a) Announcing policy with consulting the partyroom and
      b) Announcing policy that is at odds with the beliefs of your core constituency

      I’m sick of all this middle-class welfare and new taxes. Why not just lower income tax so people who want to start families can save for themselves? We have massive PAYE tax and a 10% GST on goods and services. It is ridiculous that any industrialised country should have to endure that.

      Here I was thinking the ALP were the ones mostly in favour of *big* government.

      Tony Abbott, I am against your great big new tax on businesses.

      Reply

    • terence galvin says:

      12:00pm | 10/03/10

      anyone who thinks this is a good idea has to be earning more than the minimum wage.
      I would like someone to explain to me why someone already earning $150,000 per year needs taxpayer support.
      I would like someone to explain to me why the person on $150,000 who chooses to have a child should get $75,000 from the taxpayers, while the person earning $40,000 per year will get $20,000,- that is less than a third of what the higher income earner would get.
      higher earner gets $75,000
      lowere earner gets $20,000
      that is a difference of $55,000 spread over 26 weeks,  yes thats right, two thousand and fifteen dollars a week more to the person who is already considerably better off…..... please read it again, $2,015 more per week to the higher income earner !
      Tony abbott and anyone else who thinks this is the least bit fair should hang their heads in shame, and abbott should ask his god if the above is what jesus would have done.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      03:56pm | 10/03/10

      I’ll explain to you why the “rich” $150K earner should get paid more. Because, they create more economic value, pay more tax, subsidise the $40K/yr earner and above all should be encouraged to have children. Further they probably have significantly higher costs and will, if they have children without support, cut their spending thereby pumping less money into the economy thereby slowing economic growth thereby lessening demand for the services of low income earning workers, thereby creating upward pressure on unemployment thereby increasing welfare reliance. Get the picture?

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:46pm | 10/03/10

      I remember the stir created by Kerry Packer paying $159 in tax. So much for your argument Andrew.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:54pm | 10/03/10

      Except for the fact that your previous conservative government loaded all you rich friends up with generous unsustainable welfare. Andrew you should probably push your politically bias propaganda onto the North Shore of Sydney. They love fantasy over there.

    • terence galvin says:

      10:49pm | 10/03/10

      yeh , sorry andrew i must be a bit thick, i’ll sleep on it and see if i can cotton onto why people like myself on a modest income should pay tax to provide $75,000 to someone on $150,000 per year. But i must admit i am confused about the whole argument that cutting their spending might be detrimental to the economy. How many investment properties do these people need?
      i’ll do my best to see that i ‘get the picture’, thank you so much for taking the time to help someone like me.
      if only those common people would know their place, hey andrew

    • Andrew says:

      10:58pm | 10/03/10

      What you think Kerry Packer and a person on $150K/yr are the same. You have no credibility. Go and peddle your class warfare rants somewhere else you peanut.

    • Andrew says:

      10:10am | 11/03/10

      Terrence how are you paying for the person who earns double what you do? They pay more than double the tax you do. They subsidise your free health care, your kids at school.
      By your reasoning they should be able to demand their kids get twice as much funding for their school, twice the health care in fact they could demand you only get to use all gov’t services 1/2 as much as they do.
      I’ll make it simple lets say the tax rate is flat and it isn’t and you earn $50,000 and I earn $100K. Lets say the rate is 10%. I pay $10K tax and you pay $5k tax. Forget about the fact that as a lower income earner you will get more spent on you than I will. Let’s just say we get $7.5K each spent on us. You my friend are living off my sweat.
      In reality if you earn $75k and I earn $150K you pay 21.8% of your income in tax or $16,350 (excluding medicare) and I pay 29.43% of my income or $44,450 (not including the private health I am required to take out or be penalised a further 1%).
      Therefore for every dollar you pay in tax I pay $2.72. DO I get 2.72 votes? DO I get 2.72 times the level of government service? No in fact I get next to no assistance because its being spent on low income earners.
      And you know what, I don’t mind, I agree the better off should help those not so fortunate. But how dare you say your paying for me. Its the other way round. SO instead of your sarcastic rant I would prefer if you just said thank you and were on your way.
      Gedditt?

    • Bec says:

      10:51am | 11/03/10

      Wow Terence you just got blown out of the water. Maybe you shouldn’t play with the big kids.

    • Daniel says:

      12:19pm | 10/03/10

      Abbott and progressive the 2 words dont go together in the same sentence. The same goes for the Liberal Party.

      Reply

    • Crassus says:

      01:10pm | 10/03/10

      Chris, you write:

      “You will like Tony Abbott’s policy if you accept the importance of parental engagement with a child in the first year of the child’s life”.

      I only hope that Mr Abbott does not argue for his policy along those lines. He may be not fully consistent in that regard.

      Reply

    • N says:

      01:21pm | 10/03/10

      While I’m not a fan of Dudd Labor, I think this is another nail in the coffin for women in the workplace. By guaranteeing 6 months paid maternity leave all you’re doing is making employers like myself see women of child baring age a risky commodity. What tangible benefit does paying someone 6 months wages for doing nothing have?  The only way to re-coup such a loss is to pass the cost on to the consumer, or have an all male workforce….

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      03:28pm | 10/03/10

      “N” only large businesses would need to pay the tax and we are talking the top 300 companies here, so unless you are BHP you can go on hiring women without risk or concern as there will be no additional cost to you than is current under Abbott’s plan.

    • persephone says:

      05:07pm | 10/03/10

      No, the top 3200 companies, get it right.

      And N is expressing a personal opinion; if he says he’s not going to employ women because they may go off for six months, then I’d take him as his word.

      But I’d quietly point out to N that it’s parental leave, so there’s a chance one of the young men he employs will take six months off too.

    • Randal says:

      09:09am | 11/03/10

      Sorry Perse a slight typo and you are correct 3200 is the number, but surely “N” should realise that women are entitled to 12 months maternity leave as of now, so I can only assume that “N” never has hired a woman.

      Never thought I would see you supporting a sexual descriminating opinion and big business Perse, geez Tony really has you lot floundering.

    • persephone says:

      10:34am | 11/03/10

      Randal

      You obviously haven’t read my posts on the ETS and the need to compensate big business.

      As I’ve said continually, it’s not the tax or the extended leave that concerns me. (I personally advocate maternal leave for breastfeeding mums paid for by the government at the minimum wage for up to 2 years, as long as the mother produces regular confirmation from a medical professional that she is still breastfeeding, but that’s a whole other issue) but the inequity of the payments and the way the tax is imposed.

      I repeat: taxes should be levied with some kind of logic to them. Either they are levied on everyone, because they deliver a general benefit, or they are levied on a specific group for a clear reason.

      This is a totally arbitrary ‘oh they can afford it so we’ll get them to pay it’ decision, which anyone who claims to be pro capitalism should be screaming about.

    • Randal says:

      02:08pm | 11/03/10

      There is no comparison between the ETS and the parental plan, the ETS is effectively another GST that would have pushed the price of all goods and services through the roof for absolutely no emission gain, other than for Kevin to gloat on the world stage, an ETS is effectively a declaration of war on the Australian economy and the sooner it is dead the better.

      As for targeted taxation, please perse, taxing those more who can afford it has been the principle of the PAYG system since it was introduced, are you now suggesting that you support a flat rated taxation system whereby all taxpayers pay the same rate of taxation, rather than the tiered system we have now which takes more from ‘those who can afford to pay’?

      Maybe you are the last of the great capitalists perse and I have just got you all wrong.

    • Ray says:

      01:54pm | 10/03/10

      This offer by Abbott succinctly demonstrates why the Westminster system is past its use by date. All our policies are geared to satisfy and gain votes from self interest groups. In this case women (again).  I am appalled at the plethora of policies aimed at securing the female vote. I have not seen one mention of fathers in Abbott’s policy. This does however identify as a legal precedent, women as the primary carer, confirming a starting point in separations. So good luck to fathers as if they didn’t already need it. So women can opt (cougar) out with all the partners assets and same poor suckers super. On to the next poor sucker after the obligatory cougar fantasy ,without missing a financial beat. Oh yes but we are talking of the interests of the child first aren’t we. How silly of me not to realise this. I am retired and daily see these hard done by mothers slogging away at the coffee shop, restaurants or beach, with each other, while their child is in childcare and they reap socially funded gratuity to cover such unplanned for expenses. Meanwhile their sucker of a husband is slaving away 60 hrs a week to provide a family inocome, unsuspecting of any cougar involvement, and being led along as a Judas sheep to destitution and separation from his children. As for parental engaement are we talking plural. If so it needs to be made clear.

      Reply

    • Nicki says:

      02:07pm | 10/03/10

      Chris, if you are calling Abbott a progressive than I have a big reservations about your state of mind. I only hope that you had too many drinks before you wrote this article.  You don’t make much sense at all.
      Please next time do your homework on clear and sober head.

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      03:39pm | 10/03/10

      I am amazed that those of the left who have screamed for paid maternity leave for years would not come out in full support of Abbott’s plan, the fact this is policy now means that both major political parties have now recognised the importance of supporting working mothers in an ageing population.

      To attack the policy because it asks some of the richest and largest businesses who have succeeded on the back of the labour of working mother’s and father’s for years would seem to be against every socialist doctrine I have ever read.

      Have all you lefties now crossed over to the dark side of capitalism and left your socialists view behind you or are these just crocodile tears for the BHP’s and NAB’s of the world??

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      05:18pm | 10/03/10

      No, we’re attacking the policy because it’s silly.

      And, unfortunately for you, a lot of the attacks are coming from the right, not just the left.

      The revenue raising side of Abbott’s policy is badly flawed. Taxes should be targetted; where they are imposed upon a small group, there should be a clear reason for doing this - they should either discourage/encourage certain behaviours, or they should provide a service specific to that small group.

      Abbott has just picked on these businesses ‘because’. By doing so, he has cost shifted the burden of paying employees in one sector onto another. That is not fair or reasonable.

      And I’m amazed by these capitalists who are willing to see big business slugged in this way and supporting A Big New Tax On Everything.

      And people who supported Tony Abbott as honest and straight talking shying away from criticising him for breaking an election promise without actually getting to an election.

      And people who accused Rudd of rushing out with policy to divert attention (unfairly, of course) not criticising Tony for rushing out a policy without even telling his cabinet colleagues what he was doing.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:38pm | 10/03/10

      Hey moron, it’s also against the doctrine of your beloved Liberal party. Don’t you remember the comments” Over my dead body”. Why is it that Labor is the true economic saviour.  How did the Liberals actually steal that mantle from us? We enact all of the economic reform, we enact all of the health reform and we enact all of the education reform.  In fact we enact all reform and the Liberals coast into power during economic booms, claim all the accolades for doing nothing, and eventually through economic mismanagement walk away and blame Labor for all their shortcomings. Doesn’t quite work anymore does it! We are a wake up to your ingovernance, your blatant lies and your general discord towards the taxpayer. We will not tolerate your ignorance and assumptions.

    • terence galvin says:

      10:57pm | 10/03/10

      I would like someone to explain to me why someone already earning $150,000 per year needs taxpayer support.
      I would like someone to explain to me why the person on $150,000 who chooses to have a child should get $75,000 from the taxpayers, while the person earning $40,000 per year will get $20,000,- that is less than a third of what the higher income earner would get.
      higher earner gets $75,000
      lowere earner gets $20,000
      that is a difference of $55,000 spread over 26 weeks,  yes thats right, two thousand and fifteen dollars a week more to the person who is already considerably better off…..... please read it again, $2,015 more per week to the higher income earner !
      Tony abbott and anyone else who thinks this is the least bit fair should hang their heads in shame, and abbott should ask his god if the above is what jesus would have done.

    • Ryan says:

      01:25pm | 15/03/10

      @Evan Findlay: Wow like you say what coincidence,  I guess the Liberals just get lucky every time hey.

      “The harder you work the luckier you get” - Gary Player

    • Andrew says:

      06:41pm | 10/03/10

      Again Pers, you don’t get it. The reason TA can hit up “big business” is the same reason Rudd can (or could) throw some weight around with the Unions, they have nowhere else to go.
      You don’t support this because it has completely taken the wind out of Rudd’s plan, which only encourages low income earners to have children and asks all higher income earners including truck drivers, miners, electricians, mechanics etc to pay for them. These guys aren’t rich they just work hard.
      I have no doubt that if this policy was espoused by Rudd yesterday you would be on this site celebrating it and berating anyone who had anything negative to say about it.
      You obviously think the Labor government is without fault and the Liberal party is evil incarnate.
      By the way this is not a Big New Tax on everything unlike the proposed ETS it is targeted and will immediately benefit those for which it is in intended and have a long term beneficial effect on employment and society in general.
      What is unbelievable is a socialist not embracing a socially beneficial policy but I guess a zealot is a zealot is a zealot.
      Mark my words if the Rudd government ever comes out with a good policy (and actually implements it) I’ll be the first to applaud. But I won’t hold my breath.
      Climate Change “the greatest moral challenge of our time” ...ETS gone.
      Home insulation .. need I say more.
      Health ... no more money until 2014 and another massive Canberra Bureaucracy etc etc
      Industrial Relations “no worker will be worse off” tell that to the nurses who are losing $300+ per fortnight.
      The war on (insert ridiculous announcement here)
      I could go on forever but it doesn’t matter your just humming to yourself and trying to work out a way to “play the man not the ball”
      What will the 2010 campaign slogan be “Governments harder than I thought but I think I’m getting the hang of it”
      TA’s got under Labor’s skin. I can hear the faint sound of shuffling deckchairs on the SS Titanic Failure that is the Rudd government.
      Sayonnara.

      Reply

    • Rebecca says:

      07:01pm | 10/03/10

      Smartest comment I’ve seen here. Well said.

    • persephone says:

      10:21pm | 10/03/10

      Er….if this is targetted, then so is the ETS. The ETS was not levied on everyone either.

      The ‘Great Big Tax on Everything’ argument was based on the idea that the costs incurred to the businesses targetted would trickle down to the rest of the population in terms of higher costs - which is exactly what will happen with this one.

      So if you call the ETS a Great Big Tax on Everything then you have to call this one a Great Big Tax on Everything too.

      I don’t believe in taxing anyone just because they have nowhere else to go. If parental leave is to be a permanent part of our political landscape, as it should be, then it should be funded on a properly sustainable basis. Even TA admits that his levy isn’t sustainable in the long term.

      I believe parental leave benefits the whole of society and thus the whole of society should bear the cost, through general revenue. That’s very socialist.

      I have no doubt that if Rudd had espoused this tax yesterday you would be attacking it, Andrew, so stop playing that silly game and argue on the merits of the case.

      And listing a series of policies isn’t an argument, Andrew.

      Neither is using a lot of silly metaphors which ultimately don’t prove anything other than your ability to regurgitate Liberal party rhetoric.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      10:30pm | 10/03/10

      Andrew you are a socialist.  Let’s impede economic progress, let’s handout monies to the rich mothers so that they can lie unproductive whilst at the same time businesses sack staff, forgo vital infrastructure, refuse to hire women at the age of 20 to 40. Decrease productivity within the economy. It’s great to watch the likes of Andrew turn and become the new socialist, the fighters of distributing wealth . Andrew you are a communist. Go you good thing.

    • Randal says:

      09:16am | 11/03/10

      Beautifully put Andrew and says it all.

    • terence galvin says:

      10:20am | 11/03/10

      andrew , i think you should hook up with the types who letterboxed fake pamphlets in jackie kelly’s electorate last election. You know the shonky types, shady propagandists for the liberal party who will say and do anything in their naive hopes that the goodness of humanity can only flourish under their way of thinking.
      unpleasant,unconvincing and damn near unbearable tedium is what your boring rants bring to the debate. i suggest you get happy and get on with life

    • Andrew says:

      10:40am | 11/03/10

      I suggest you join the labor class warfare spin machine and use divisive politics and scare tactics to win government. Oh, i forgot, you already did that.
      BTW what is it exactly you bring to the debate? An inability to consider anyone elses point of view unless it exactly correlates with yours?
      Insulting me won’t make me go away it will merely reinforce my belief that the left’s answer to criticism or another persons idea is to play the man not the ball.
      Get yourself to the room of mirrors.

    • Jason says:

      06:55pm | 10/03/10

      Mean while he is a bigot against gays? definately not progressive mate.

      Reply

    • Gee Suss says:

      07:02pm | 10/03/10

      The policy is wrong—-both policies are wrong..                                    Nobody should be paid huge amounts to have children. The planet is grossly over populated as it is. In my opinion we should be paid not to have them,because we are fouling up the only home we have!

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:06pm | 10/03/10

      My partner and I have had two children and our employer bestowed upon us six weeks of normal pay rates, no penalty rates, as a form of maternity leave. We had some holiday leave up and a mortgage of $260,000.  I should point out that they only paid three weeks up front and the other three weeks after nine months of returning back to work. On our second child we didn’t even bother about the follow up three weeks because my partner could not stomach working back for the same employer. We survived and paid our bills.

      Read between the lines and Abbott is only patronizing his North Shore neighbors who still want to retain a healthy income whilst staying at home. Well welcome to the real world fools. The Labor plan is $8000 more than we received and we survived. The economy is more important at this time and you already get healthy rebates and middle class welfare courtesy of the last economically incompetent government. So take a Bex and man up. Everyone else has managed to survive.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      11:03pm | 10/03/10

      Here’s what you do Evan, up your mortgage to $400K, use the money to start your own business, work hard, earn more money, employ people, earn more money then you can stop complaining about the free handouts you got and start enjoying life.
      Hey, did you name your kids Bitter & Twisted?

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:20am | 11/03/10

      Abbott was so rude yesterday it was an embarrassment to the country of Australia. First at the lunch he failed to properly address the dignitaries, he only addressed the President but even that he couldn’t get right. He is blinded by his gut hate for the ALP that he is bringing this country into disrepute. And I am sick of the rot, the obstructionist attitude of this little man. And we thought Pauline Hanson was bad for our countries reputation. I wonder if the liberal left hand knows/talks/communicates with the liberal right hands, coz there seems to be an awful lot of stale Howard years air in between. Yesterday listening to the leader of the federal opposition at the luncheon and also in the house, I was embarrassed to be an Australian.

      Reply

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      09:18pm | 11/03/10

      The Australian Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, has come to realise the importance of societies principle productive drivers, have on the economy and society in general. Its a pity the lemming like who wanted to be driven over the cliff encompassing the ETS, don’t see, the most important benefits to the human families ability to drive productive choice.

      Reply

    • bruce 70 says:

      04:14pm | 15/03/10

      i have been very intersted in politics for many years have voted for both major parties, i only have one comment here     tony abbott is an absolute joke

      Reply

    • Ron Woods says:

      03:16pm | 19/03/10

      It’s disappointing to see the name-calling and vitriol in many of these blogs, most of which seem to have lost track of the issue itself.  Some years ago, only FIVE nations in the whole world did not have paid maternity leave, three of which were third-world countries.  Now only TWO nations remain: the USA (which still isn’t considering it) and Australia, which is at last.

      The higher 26 week payment offered by Abbott is better for parents than Rudd’s lower and shorter payments (though it’s suggested that Rudd’s proposal may be increased).  What worries me about Abbott’s proposal, though, is that he expects big business to pay for it.

      Whether you agree with paid maternity leave or not, it’s not appropriate to tax/levy (whatever name you give it) big business for what should be a government responsibility.  Big business isn’t singled out to pay for the dole or other welfare payments, and maternity leave is in the same category.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 06:25PM

RT @public_defender: #Westpac waits till the minute after the evening news bulletins' #ANZ stories go to air to raise its variable #interestrates by 0.1%. Hmmm.

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 06:20PM

@franksting and 64-68 are all from a Corkman @pjlogue @cowoods

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 06:12PM

@nadinevoncohen do you have a keyboard shortcut for the first two words of each tweet, or is it a type each time deal?

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 05:00PM

@joekiely an Irish ghost called a mist fairy comes on dark road and pushes you into the ditch. nothing to do with six pints

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

132

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

34

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

25

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed