Tony Abbott’s colleagues must be wondering what on earth they have done by replacing one erratic unilateralist leader with another. There is certainly no escape hatch between now and the election.
Abbott’s $2.75 billion “big new tax” on large companies to fund six months of fully paid maternity leave is so contradictory and hypocritical it’s mind boggling.
The fact he didn’t inform his colleagues in advance of the announcement, including finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce, suggests Mr Abbott had a brain explosion or popped a thought bubble.
Paid maternity leave on that scale is simply bad policy and doubtful as a vote winner.
The people most likely to welcome it (and so far they haven’t) are feminists and unionists, who are unlikely to vote Liberal anyhow.
People like me, whose reproductive days are over, may even be a little resentful.
Consider these other reasons why it’s wrong:
- Rich women will be paid more;
- Country women will be paid less;
- A big new tax will stifle investment and employment;
- There are more pressing social priorities;
- Stay-at-home mums will be paid what exactly?
Australia doesn’t need to spend $2.7 billion on a new and unnecessary form of middle class welfare.
I’m tired of Labor and Liberal politicians outbidding each other on handouts to buy votes. I want to see investment in major infrastructure and regional development.
The social policy areas that most urgently need investment are health and aged care.
As for Abbott contradicting himself and acting unilaterally, Malcolm Turnbull must be rather self satisfied today.
×0
I must admit I personally have something of a instant ‘allergy’ (so to speak!), to anything Tony Abbott says, however there are at least some aspects of his proposal on maternity leave that I support, or think at least warrant further consideration.
The main point about this would be the income-related to component to Tony Abbot’s proposed maternity leave. This would guarantee 100% income replacement, instead of the flat-rate minimum wage payment of the Labor government’s scheme.
This leads to an interesting point. One of the unique features of Australia’s welfare system, is that along with New Zealand we are the only two Western nations, to never have had income-related welfare payments.
In most other nations, payments for things such as unemployment and disabilty are based on a percentage of prior income (usually 50-75%) for a period of time (6-12 months), before falling back to the flat-rate.
The idea behind this being, that whilst flat-rate payments are good at preventing starvation, homelessness, etc, they are insufficient to meet the financial committments the average middle-income family might have (mortgage repayments, etc).
The first Menzies government in the late 1930′s, did try to introduce a similar set-up here in Australia, but this met with stiff trade union opposition. The unions insisted that wages must be increased by the amount of any taxes, which Menzies was loath to do and the idea was shelved.
As to how this relates to Tony Abbott’s proposed scheme, it is because this would for the first time in Australia introduce a directly government administered payment (superannuation is of course not directly government administered) that is income-related.
I think the idea of an income-related element to maternity leave is a good idea. As I pointed out earlier, most middle-income families have financial committments that a payment set at the minimum wage will not meet.
I do however think that a 100% replacement rate is too much; it is a bit ‘over the top’ to be in receipt of a government payment and not expect any reduction in living standards. Somewhere around 50-75% replacement is better IMHO.
It would be advisable for there to be a minimum benefit amount, which all families would get regardless of the mother’s prior income; this could be set, as per the Labor government’s scheme, at the minimum wage level. This would protect the interests of lower-income working mums and stay-at-home mums.
Of course there is the objection: Why should higher-earning working mums get higher payments than their lower-income and stay-at-home counterparts?
I think the answer to that question depends to a large extent on whether you view maternity leave as a payment for giving birth or as a replacement for income lost while the mother takes a break from work.
Whilst I definintely agree that to some extent maternity leave is a payment for giving birth (hence why I support a minimum amount payable to all mothers), I personally view it primarily as income replacement for lost income.
I have not read much into the detail about the ‘big new tax’ (as Tony Abbott might call it if Kevin Rudd were proposing the scheme!), being proposed to fund the scheme. However, it does appear ‘clumsy’ in the way it targets businesses with revenue/profits over a randomly defined amount.
Most nations with maternity leave schemes fund it via a form of payroll tax (this also assists to track each worker’s level of entitlement to the payment). If I remember correctly, when the GST was introduced, the states promised to abolish payroll taxes. Most (all?) didn’t.
Perhaps, given all the talk lately about the correct balance between federal and state competencies, a percentage of state payroll taxes could go toward any such maternity leave scheme?
I would question your assumption support for such as scheme is likely to come mainly from ‘feminists and unionists’.
I think a key target group for Abbott’s policy would be tertiary-educated middle/upper-middle income earning women and their husbands, who would be most likely to benefit from such a scheme (as opposed to the Labor government’s scheme). This would include groups such as teachers, nurses, managers, lawyers and doctors, etc.
This group is I would say (just my opinion based on things I have read) largely small-l liberal, and ‘should’ based on income be Liberal voters. However this group of largely urban, salaried professionals has tended to vote Labor in recent years.
Perhaps this is an attempt to get these small-l Liberals (who have been deterred in recent years by John Howard’s social conservatism) back into the Liberal fold?
However, they are also likely, rather like me (a Labor voter) to have an instant ‘allergy’ to Tony Abbott (who is even more socially conservative and significantly more ideologically driven than Howard).
If the Liberals had wanted to go down this electoral path (on this and other issues), it may have been better to keep Malcolm Turnbull as leader.
Twitter: mgorey
says:
Adam, I like it how I give a knee-jerk reaction to a topical issue while you think about it for five days and come back with a considered response
We’ve survived pretty well as a society so far without 6-12 months of paid maternity leave.
Welfare ought to be for those in genuine need and goodness knows the disabled and carers could do with more support, not to mention the bottomless pits of health and aged care.
There’s already a generous “baby bonus” and family allowance payments.
I did read your blog entry about this not long after you wrote it, but didn’t get around to writing a reply until a while later.
I comment on a few websites and I’m not sure if others are like this, but I seem to have times where I follow them closely and write lots of comments for a few weeks at a time and then go quiet for a few weeks after that!
Wow, Adam you have certainly done your homework on this issue.
I found all you have said very interesting.
Me? I vote Labor too, and not because the man in the budgie smugglers is so unreal with his sweeping efforts, either, but he does try?
I agree with you Ebony, that Tony Abbott is certainly quite unconventional for a politician in many ways!
I may disagree strongly with his political views, but he certainly is an interesting character.
It is almost impossible to think of a stronger contrast with the bland, controlled personality of Kevin Rudd.
I am sure Michael would agree that from the point-of-view of journalists, Abbott is the far more ‘interesting’ person for them to cover!
His ‘thought-bubble’ approach to policy and general use of political language has a certain ‘rent-a-quote’ (I think that is the correct term?) to it, that generates headlines.
This is in much the same style as Barnaby Joyce, except for the most part within more politically acceptable limits.
Twitter: mgorey
says:
Abbott is colorful from a media perspective, there’s no doubt about that.
It was interesting to read Paul Keating’s comments that he believes Abbott lacks intellectual capacity. I don’t agree with that and I suggest it shows Labor is worried.
However, I remain opposed to Abbott’s maternity leave policy.