Quote:

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has flagged plans to make big business pay for coalition plans to introduce six months paid parental leave. “Every woman who is in the workforce before the birth of her child should have the option of six months' parental leave or of a similar option for her partner,” the Opposition Leader told an International Women's Day function in Sydney today. “A 1.7 per cent levy on the taxable income over $5 million a year of the 3200 companies that pay more than this would raise $2.7 billion. “Rolling in the Baby Bonus, this would be enough to fund 26 weeks of paid parental leave at an annual income up to $150,000 for every woman who is in the workforce prior to having a baby.” Mr Abbott said the scheme would offer potential savings for the mostly large businesses that already offer some parental leave, while providing smaller businesses' employees with a benefit that is funded by larger businesses. He attacked the government's paid parental leave scheme as “an afterthought”. “The $260 million a year scheme provides only the minimum federal award rate for just 18 weeks for women in the paid workforce who lose their Baby Bonus and any Family Tax Benefit Part B to which they might have been entitled,” he told the gathering. “The fact that it won't start until after the next election and wasn't included in last year's budget papers demonstrates that it was an afterthought designed more for its announcement value than for any lasting benefit to mothers in the workforce.” Mr Abbott said full details of his proposal would be released “in good time before the election”.

I don't understand why he is doing this. He shouldn't be supporting parental leave in the first place. What happened to the Liberal Party that defended businesses? If you are not working, you shouldn't be paid and you shouldn't expect your job should you attempt to return. If businesses voluntarily opt to advertise jobs with paid parental leave to secure employees then fine, but the government shouldn't force these conditions.

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

I don't understand why he is doing this.

Just think, JaeMi, if we had some real democracy here instead of the party system you support, it wouldn't matter what Tony Abbott turned against.

fawkes wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 8th, 2010 at 3:38pm: I don't understand why he is doing this. Just think, JaeMi, if we had some real democracy here instead of the party system you support, it wouldn't matter what Tony Abbott turned against.

What do you mean by "real" democracy? Would you be referring to direct democracy?

I see little merit for the idea and much against it.

totally NON right wing idea

It is an idea the Mad Monk said would be introduced "over his dead body."

I think he is trying to get some media attention.

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

What do you mean by "real" democracy? Would you be referring to direct democracy?

There are numerous variants of so called democracy. A couple that I believe would be better for the majority of citizens are 1. some form of direct democracy, and 2. delegable proxy (as described in these pages at
http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy )

It certainly doesn;t sound like traditional coalition policy, and certainly not something from the conservative end of the party. But remember, Howard introduced and absurd amount of handouts. I think the distinction between the two parties is disappearing, at least in ideological terms.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

I think the distinction between the two parties is disappearing, at least in ideological terms.

Whoa, freediver's on the ball! Did you just work that out, or have you been asleep since 1977?

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

I think the distinction between the two parties is disappearing, at least in ideological terms.

Not necessarily a bad thing generally speaking, of course,  and in the Australian context (stable liberal democracy), a good thing. Wishing for increased social polarisation out of boredom with stability and ideological consensus is a much worse thing than an increasing common middle ground.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

I think the distinction between the two parties is disappearing, at least in ideological terms.

I have heard them referred to as Tweedledum and Tweedledee for almost 20 years.  They will both embroil you in unnecessary wars, steal your savings through deliberate inflation, sell off our publicly owned assets entrusted to them to manage for us, lie and hide truth whenever it suits them, erode your personal freedoms on one pretext or another, invent ways of taxing you more so that they have more money to waste, and so on. A stable sham democracy that some people consider good because other places and other times have had worse.

Abbott's going for the Howard battlers. Abbott's a capital C conservative, not an economic libertarian.

All that tosh about the Liberal backbenchers putting him in his place if he doesn't consult more is ridiculous. There's no way the Libs'll try a new leader.

Abbott will unite them just like his deity, John Howard, did. He seems like an approachable guy, and Malcolm wasn't.

He's serving it up to Labor, but it's going to be a while before he can really get rid of his Catholic baggage and have the electorate support him. One day, he will give Labor a run for their money.

The only other candidate they have is Joe Hockey, but I think he's now a bit too wet for the majority of the crusty old dinosaurs in the Coalition. Hockey has electoral support, but he hasn't quite got the balls to keep the Howard Conservatives in their place.

Hockey can do this because he's one of them.

Ah. And now Hockey's setting himself up as the party's libertarian.

In a speech he gave yesterday, he came down on internet censorship and the security laws set up by the Libs, which he voted for.

Hockey's setting himself up as the champion of the wets. Abbott's the white knight of the far right.

Watch the games begin. I like Hockey, but I'm sad to say that in this game, Abbott's climate sceptics will keep him where he is.