For once you have to sympathise with Tony Abbott. His parental leave policy may be a disaster, but if so it is not for the reasons being trumpeted by the government and the media.
Despite what his apologists are now claiming, there is no doubt that its unveiling was rushed and rash. Abbott may have spent some months reconsidering his old “over-my-dead-body” stance on paid maternity leave, but there is no sign that he took more than a few micro-seconds working out the details of his new one.
This explains his remark about it being easier to apologise to his party room after the announcement rather than asking its permission beforehand. Has he done so, it is hardly likely that it would have emerged in its present amorphous form.
The idea of six months leave on full pay for everyone is appealing in its simplicity, but it hardly adds up. Giving the cleaners $600 a week to have their babies while the executives get $3000 a week seems, at the very least, a trifle unfair. Abbott obviously subscribes to the view articulated by a correspondent to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2004: “The rich need more money than the poor because they have greater expenses.”
But considerations of equity aside, the scheme is vastly more generous than the government’s, and more than 10 times as expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. Abbott proposes a levy of 1.7% on companies that earn more than $5 million a year — or perhaps that turn over more than $5 million a year, or perhaps that pay tax on more than $5 million a year, or perhaps that pay more than $5 million a year in tax, no one seems entirely sure. The levy would be, we think, on the total taxable income of the companies, but again we are not quite sure.
What we do know is that only the 3200 biggest companies in the country would be affected, and that they can all afford it. If not, they could always try putting a levy of their own on the salaries of the CEOs and directors — about 75% might be appropriate.
The companies are kicking of course; even Peter Anderson, the die-in-a-ditch Liberal chief executive of Abbott’s normally rusted on support base, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry, said the policy didn’t make sense and Heather Ridout of the more moderate Australian Industries Group said she couldn’t believe Abbott was serious: the priority should be to lower company tax, not raise it.
And when not only the feminist groups but the Greens came out in support of Abbott, the economists crowed that this proved the idea was totally crazy: fairies in the bottom of the garden stuff aimed at undermining our prosperity and destroying our way of life.
But this criticism was mere distraction from the big problem, which is that Abbott, as Opposition leader, is proposing a Big New Tax. This breaks the first rule of Opposition: never, never admit that you might increase taxes in any way, let alone introduce a new one.
Even in government it’s a huge risk, as John Howard found out with the GST; in 1998, after a gigantic campaign funded by all the resources the taxpayers could provide, Howard barely scraped back with less than half of the popular vote. In Opposition it’s suicide: just ask John Hewson, or for that matter Mark Latham, who in 2004 refused to play the tabloids’ silly game and guarantee no tax increases.
There are times when good policy cannot be delivered without tax increases, even a new tax: if Kevin Rudd is serious about reforming the health and hospitals network to the standards the media are demanding, taxpayers — or some of them — will have to foot the bill. But you can bet he won’t spell this out in an election year. He is not that crazy-brave.
There is much to criticise in Abbott’s policies and this column will continue to did so. But right now he is being pilloried not for a matter of substance, but for having the courage to defy one of Australia’s more mindless political shibboleths. Like I said, you have to sympathise.
But save your real applause for the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, whose visit to Australia last week was a long overdue breakthrough. SBY, as he likes to be known was serious, frank and supremely constructive. And he identified the biggest problem between his country and ours: not the governments, but the people, who remain mutually suspicious and still feel vaguely threatened by each other.
I can relate to this; only a few years ago I regarded Indonesia as a sort of post-colonial Javanese empire, dominated by doctrinaire Moslems and tenuously held together by a corrupt and expansionist military, an international loose cannon, which could only be treated as potentially hostile to Australian interests. But in an astonishingly short time it has all changed: Indonesia is now emerging as a fully-fledged secular democracy, increasingly prosperous and confident of its place in the world, an unambiguously good neighbour. There is still work to be done but SBY, building on the foundation laid by the brilliant, if eccentric, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), has helped to transform not just his country, but the entire region, for the better.
The politicians on both sides accept and welcome this, but the public in general has not caught up: a recent survey showed 54% of Australians still regard Indonesia as irresponsible in international relations, and we can assume the sentiment is returned in the archipelago. This outdated view must be corrected.
Educational and cultural exchanges and even tourism will help, but the most important step is to restore the teaching of Asian languages, and particularly Indonesian, in Australian schools and institutions. The program was thriving until it was inexplicably terminated under John Howard. Kevin Rudd has promised to reinstate it; SBY’s visit should encourage him to start doing so at once.
Mungo – If anyone really believes, that if Abbott won the next election he’d introduce paid maternity leave for 6 months, they’re kidding themselves. Remember the Medicare Rebate fiasco of 2004? Abbott had to renig on that as he hadn’t done his sums properly. It was ‘rusted on’ “set in stone’ or whatever – a definite, cross my heart hope to die blah blah blah!
As a woman whose child bearing days are definitely over, I’m 100% in favour of paid maternity/paternity leave, but not Abbott’s. It hasn’t been properly costed and is favouring the rich – as though the babies of the rich are more important. I’d turn his policy on its head – those from the lowest socio economic segment should be paid the most, at least equal! They don’t have as much exposable income prior to their child’s arrival as those well off! Babies cost a lot these days!
I don’t trust Abbott; I don’t like him, and he’s just mouthing off to get votes – he chose this to try and win back some support from women – any woman who doesn’t see through him is either dumb or stupid? He insults my intelligence by trying to act as though I can’t remember his horrific attitudes to women over the yrs. Any amount of flowery promises are just that – flowery, and lack substance!
Today he’s demeaning the policy of recognising aboriginal people as the first custodians at the outset of public functions – apparently it’s OK to spend several minutes acknowledging politicians, particularly Opposition Leaders! How gross! I support this courtesy which is due to indigenous people – I always take time to silently respect this fact at public functions. His true self is shining through! Can’t help himself can he?
The hypocrisy of Abbott is breathtaking, as it is with the conservation generally, nothing new about that. However, to feel sorry for the greatest galah to ever front a conservative opposition ever, Mungo you’re starting too loose it, or it’s just not funny at all.
Spot on with your Indo stuff. Lookout for the ignorant conservative backlash thou, you know they need an enemy and to fear something or someone for them to exist.
It’s a religious thingy “fear not” their God tells them. The only people I see “fearing not” are atheists. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
MUNGO: You may sympathise with Tony Abbott. I don’t. Any religious fundamentalist within striking distance of becoming the Prime Minister of this country is an obscenity.
Tony Abbott can’t seem to make up his mind who he is. semi-nude and ageing he-man, passionate Aboriginal supporter, writer for female issues-lock them to their ironing boards, and don’t flog your virginity, give it to the man you love.
As you well know Tony Abbott got the job as health minister in the Howard government because our little Johnny wanted to get the Telstra bill through parliament, and as the price for Brian Harradine to vote for the bill he demanded Tony Abbott be shifted to health in order to prevent women from getting abortions and sundry other items. As in RU486.
It’s all very well for you to be having a feel for largesse about this Catholic cretin but you might confer with your wives, past and present, to see how they view this obscene little man.
As regrettable as your pro-Abbott stance is, fortunately did not rub off onto your excellent comment on Indonesia. This was truly first class.
Inequities aside, any policy seen to increase Australia’s burgeoning population is a disastrous one. In addition, we’ve seen the rapid increase of young, ill-prepared single women over many decades, encouraged to procreate by the prospect of receiving government hand-outs and the often appalling results are evident.
Many other single women (including myself) have raised a family, preferring not to avail themselves of the public purse and have managed to make ends meet, living within our means on low incomes.
Astonishingly, while parents (including the elderly) of autistic and mentally disabled progeny are being denied funding or respite from their arduous commitments, Abbott’s offering affluent mothers big bucks to stay at home for six months in their McMansions.
Each time the Monk preaches, his delusions of denial grow more apparent. Would a swift kick to the budgie smugglers awaken him to the realities! I don’t think so.
FLOWER – I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I don’t like the attack on young women – single or not! I think it’s not fair for women to criticize the young women who become mothers, many of them do a fine job. I was only 18 1/2 when my first son was born and although my then husband and I lived on a very low wage, I loved my kids and was a responsible and loving mother – the 3 of them are now grown men, with responsible jobs, families etc of whom I’m very proud. Conversely, there are older women who may not be good mothers, but to pick on young women is unfair. As a senior woman, I like to give them all the encouragement I can! I think I have a responsibility to their generation, not criticism! If I’m out and a child is playing up, I don’t criticize the mother, I ask if I can help, or try and do something positive! I can still remember all the challenges!
As I said in my first post, I think those on lower incomes should receive more paid maternity leave not less! They have less money to spend on essentials for a baby – cots, prams and adequate safey car seats are just a few of the expenses. Those already living in McMansions are better equipped to buy them.
I have no problem assisting young people. Just because child endowment was almost useless yrs ago is no reason not to care for young families now. It’s an investment in the future. Just because I ‘did it tough’ is no reason for me to wish it on others. We’re a rich country, if we can’t afford to look after the very young, the very old and the vulnerable, we should call it quits as far as boasting of believing in a ‘fair go’ or be considered a caring society!
What I’d also like to see, is support people/nurses/counsellor who visit mothers and babies at home on a weekly, fortnightly and then monthly basis until the baby is at least one yr old. I understand this program has been in operation in SA for several yrs now, and is very successful; in fact, babies being readmitted to hospital for any reason, child abuse is much lower to almost non-existent, and the professional can also detect women who may be suffering from post-natal depression and/or detect any issue of domestic violence. The $ spent at this time can save $$$’s later on. I think it’s a great idea, especially when women are only in hospital for a couple of days at best! Not long enough!
The numbers of babies women are now having is less than 2 per woman. I have a real problem with producing 3 myself, but instigating policies that may restrict today’s young couples from having any – I don’t have that right? Perhaps if we made sure all our young people had jobs; used forward planning re our future needs re professionals and those with a trade etc, we wouldn’t need to bring so many new citizens into the country – then we could concentrate on those fleeing persecution.
VENISE – I’m with you. The day I have any sympathy for Abbott will be when I’ve really lost my marbles! No way! I can’t stand him at all! He disgusts me!