In a speech for International Women’s Day yesterday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott announced his intention to offer six months’ paid leave for parents of newborns, funded by a $2.7 billion tax on big companies.
Said big companies were predictably unimpressed with the plan, with the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry all slamming the “big new tax”, while the ACTU has called bullshit — and even Abbott’s colleagues think he’s taking the piss, according to Samantha Maiden in The Oz:
“Its a typical 1930s socialist impost on big business, designed to relieve the government of meetings its responsibilities to provide paid maternity leave to the women of Australia,” a Liberal politician tersely dictated. “But it’s your policy,” I whispered.
“Oh”, he said, laughing, “Well, that’s all off the record.”
But will it be a winner with Rudd’s “working families”? Here’s how the pundits are calling it:
The Australian
Editorial: A pitch to ‘working families’
In carving out another point of difference with the government, Mr Abbott has set his sights on Mr Rudd’s “working families”.
Samantha Maiden: Tony keeping mum on his big new tax
… let’s not saddle the women of the nation with a policy that’s just too dumb to fly.
The Age
Michelle Grattan: Abbott lets fly from left field … and gets caught out
Tony Abbott, who desperately needs to build up ”cred” with business, has done himself harm with his left-field proposal for an extra tax on bigger companies to pay for his parental leave plan.
Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Hartcher: Tony, this is the mother of irresponsible policymaking
This is reckless, irresponsible, unprincipled ad hockery that will not help women to a better deal.
Herald Sun
Phillip Hudson: Consistency concern for converted ladies’ man Tony Abbott
He has three daughters who may confront this great juggling act, and Abbott wants better options for them.
Daily Telegraph
Editorial: The real value of parenting
Business objections aside, the Abbott plan is worth examining.
Gold Coast Bulletin
Editorial: The mother of all levies for business
For such a landmark policy, we would expect more detail and more contingency.
Elsewhere…
Babble Australia: Amber Robinson: Abbott proposes six months’ paid parental leave
For middle-to-higher income earning women, this policy is vastly preferable to the Rudd government’s option, which only offers leave at minimum wage levels … I’m sure we’d all appreciate more time off too.
Larvatus Prodeo: Mark Bahnisch: Abbott’s parental leave non-policy
Abbott’s rhetoric is very much a bob each way, with a few sops thrown out to those who might be sceptical about the big government nature of this idea
The Punch: Tory Maguire: Abbott’s parent plan could pit women against each other
I would be uncomfortable with the government paying me more or less than the woman sitting next to me at work.
This policy is clearly a nonsense and as a govt policy — laughable.
Even a Liberal bent on middle-class welfare, cannot justify paying women four times (perhaps more) the basic wage or pension to have children. The pensioners and carers who had to lobby for years for a mere $30 pw raise in the pension will be particularly appalled.
In an attempt to attract votes from the group he is least popular with, Abbott will disaffect his grass roots base, the base he has only just won back to the coalition’s side.
Big business will shy away from employing women — afterall, the cost of replacing key personnel (in some cases, regularly, if women decide to have several children in quick succession) will add to the impost over and above the proposed levy.
Unfair dismissal laws will definitely have to go as big business will need to terminate such employees.
In essence, the coalition is saying that children of women who earn high incomes are of greater value than the children of a woman earning the basic wage.
It will also be difficult for the coalition to justify applying a levy to big business because they ‘can afford to pay’ (Sharman Stone’s statement to SKY yesterday) when they dismiss such a statement in regards to the private health fund rebates.
This policy is populism in the extreme, and most people with an ounce of common sense will see that it is not only impractical but inequitable.
I know Crikey likes to compare Abbott to Latham, and this has a whiff of Medicare Gold about it.
if a politician were to say ‘working families’ and ‘great big new tax’ in the same sound grab, would this be the equivalent of matter colliding with anti-matter and cause a political cliche supernova resulting in a black hole opening up in Canberra?
Part of the populist sting in the tail here is the attack on Big Business–who can apparently afford to pay maternity leave–and the defence of small business. There is a touch of the UK’s Red Toryism in this form of populism which aligns with the rejection of Rudd’s ETS. Abbott’s action-dude mission is to attempt to firm up a version of the Liberal-National base–libertarians, small business owners, conservatives–rather than seriously challenge Rudd’s ALP. The choice of Barnaby Joyce as finance shadow also points to this strategy.
The carrot: lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%.
Result: 100% compliance.
Problem solved.
Rudd is pissed he didn’t think of it first…but then again it was his choice to delay the Henry Review for reasons best known to himself.
I note the apoplexy amongst the Canberra cognoscenti and various Leftists accusing Abbott of ‘attacking’ “big business”.
Aren’t they supposed to be ‘bankrolling’ the Liberals?
yes, apoplexy amongst those renowned leftists like Heather Ridout, Peter Anderson, Wilson Tuckey and Fiona Nash.