PDA

View Full Version : Abbott's maternity leave policy



Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
I don't have much regards for KRUdd big spending, but Abbott isn't any better with is't stupid parental leave scheme:

Abbott playing politics with paid parental leave, Rudd warns (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/abbott-playing-politics-with-paid-parental-leave-rudd-warns/story-e6frgczf-1225839164646)

Good criticism here:
How Abbott’s parental policy eats itself (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/how_abbotts_parental_policy_eats_itself/)

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 12:58 PM
I don't have much regards for KRudd big spending, but Abbott isn't any better with is't stupid parental leave scheme:

Abbott playing politics with paid parental leave, Rudd warns (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/abbott-playing-politics-with-paid-parental-leave-rudd-warns/story-e6frgczf-1225839164646)

Good criticism here:
How Abbott’s parental policy eats itself (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/how_abbotts_parental_policy_eats_itself/)
I agree, and have expressed my strong opposition on the "Tony Abbott for PM" Facebook group. The main reason for Abbott's success in being at least competitive, unlike Talkbull, was that he provided genuine conservative opposition on the Enormous Tax Scam. But this stupidity is just the same sort of Labor-Lite crap that left Talkbull languishing in the polls.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 12:16 PM
I agree, and have expressed my strong opposition on the "Tony Abbott for PM" Facebook group. The main reason for Abbott's success in being at least competitive, unlike Talkbull, was that he provided genuine conservative opposition on the Enormous Tax Scam. But this stupidity is just the same sort of Labor-Lite crap that left Talkbull languishing in the polls.
Abbott's hastily conceived scheme is such crass stupidity. It totally undercuts any claim that the Coalition would be more business-friendly. And it's hardly likely that the feminazis would vote for Abbott anyway, and it's moronic to try to appease those who will neve vote for you. More likely, sensible women will be repulsed by such patronizing crap, just as female firefighters have been by partonizing "diversity" schemes (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/women-defend-mfbs-culture-20100314-q63i.html):


NEARLY half the women firefighters at the Metropolitan Fire Brigade have publicly rejected claims of a ‘’closed culture’’ and say setting diversity targets is ‘’patronising and forever taints applicants’’....

In a a letter published in The Age today, 24 women firefighters say they are ‘’offended by the implication of the MFB’s gender inclusion action plan’’ that women need ‘’special assistance’’. Only 56 out of 1737 firefighters at the MFB are women, or 3.2 per cent, and the organisation is trying to boost the number of women and people from under-represented backgrounds.

The MFB denies its diversity programs involves any lowering of standards and the gender plan would ‘’aim’’ for 20 per cent of women in pre-employment training, not in the job itself.

A female firefighter with more than a decade’s experience at the MFB, Mac Hanson, said the women felt strongly about the issue and wanted to be selected on merit, not through special programs.

Abbott's silly idea is more likely to hurt job prospects of young women. Why would employers risk hiring someone with even more incentive to cease working? The new book Super-Freakanomics points out something similar with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): it was supposed to help the disabled find work, but the opposite happened. Employers were so concerned that any discipline or dismissal of disabled workers would be a legal minefield that they were wary of hiring them in the first place.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2010, 01:41 PM
Rudd, Abbott in wacky race to the bottom of the tax barrel (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-abbott-in-wacky-race-to-the-bottom-of-the-tax-barrel-20100316-qcgv.html)
Peter Costello
The Age, 17 March 2010

It doesn't matter whose policy's bigger than whose when both are bad.

IT'S hard to decide whose idea was worse. First was Kevin Rudd, who announced he wants 30 per cent of the states' GST so he can "fix" the hospital system. Then there was Tony Abbott, who announced he wants to increase company tax to "fix" parental leave.

First to Abbott. He proposes a government payment to new mothers who leave the workforce of six months' salary on full pay up to $75,000. It is billed as the most generous state scheme in the world after Sweden - which in itself should have set the alarm bells ringing. For Liberals, that alarm should have sounded like an air-raid siren once Bob Brown and the Greens lauded the scheme.

Companies that already operate maternity schemes will close them and encourage employees to go on the government entitlement. And why shouldn't they? Otherwise they would pay twice - directly to their own employees and indirectly through increased taxes. So private benefits will be socialised, spending will rise and taxes will increase.

I have been to a lot of Liberal Party meetings in my life and I can honestly say I have never heard a speech in favour of higher tax. Sure, I have heard speeches in favour of replacing inefficient taxes with simpler ones (and indeed given a few of those myself) and I have heard people argue for better tax compliance as a way of reducing taxes for honest and enterprising folk. But the idea of increasing tax would be as foreign to the Liberal Party as voluntary unionism at the local ALP branch.

The Liberal Party is quite proud of the fact that in government it cut company tax from 36 per cent to 30 per cent and introduced full dividend imputation. At the time, it made Australia one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions in the developed world. Others are now catching and overtaking us. We cannot afford to go backwards.
...

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2010, 01:51 PM
Coalition betrays stay-at-home mothers (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-abbott-in-wacky-race-to-the-bottom-of-the-tax-barrel-20100316-qcgv.html)
Angela Shanahan
The Australian, 17 March 2010


It deflects our attention from the much bigger issue of what to do about income support for all families, whether the mother works or not.

A maternity leave policy in splendid isolation is simply caving into the Left, who always see family policy through the prism of the mother in the workforce.

During the past five to seven years the issue of parental leave should have changed.

It should have become less ideological and we should be looking more at holistic family policy. The reason is that we know the same women opt in and out of the workforce at different stages. Most of those part-time working mothers will also become full-time mothers, particularly if they have three or more children. This is something both sides of politics need to grasp.

The Liberty and Democracy Party's tax/welfare reform policy (http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1167:welfare&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290) simply has an income supplement per child. It leaves it up to the parents how to use that: whether a parent wants to stay home, pay for daycare, give something to the grandparents, or whatever. Leftards want to subsidize daycare, which amounts to poor single-income two-parent families subsidizing rich double-income familes.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2010, 01:52 PM
Mods: I've started a new thread on Abbott's crass scheme (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=11683). Maybe the above three posts should be moved there? [done-mod]

Desmond
18-03-2010, 01:54 PM
You have a bit of a stutter in that first one.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2010, 02:50 PM
You have a bit of a stutter in that first one.
Thanx Boris; fixed now.

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2010, 10:04 AM
]NEARLY half the women firefighters at the Metropolitan Fire Brigade have publicly rejected claims of a ‘’closed culture’’ and say setting diversity targets is ‘’patronising and forever taints applicants’’....

The female firefighters have further lambasted the politically correct crap by pointing out that they don't need special favours—they passed the same tests as the men, and are respected because they did so. But the (male) bureaucrat in charge is determined to make victims of them anyway (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_furious_women_torch_fire_brigades_anti_sexi sts/).

Igor_Goldenberg
26-03-2010, 10:40 AM
I don't remember naming the topic that way (and my post is the first).

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't remember naming the topic that way (and my post is the first).
My fault: I started a thread on this topic, and suggested that all other posts be moved here. But since your post is first, I am happy for you to choose the title.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-03-2010, 12:04 PM
I think "Abbott's maternity leave policy" is sufficent.

AzureBlue
26-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Australia’s population is ageing. According to the Third Intergenerational Report released in January, Australia's population will increase to almost 36 million by 2050, an increase of 62%. By 2050 the number of people older than 65 will increase by 10% to 23%. Incentives are needed to encourage an increase in the population – with the way we’re going, the elderly will burden the government welfare system, and the government will then need to burden the significantly smaller younger population to support the overwhelmingly large older generation.

Working women who become pregnant are faced with the threat of job loss, suspended earnings and increased health risks due to inadequate safeguards for their employment. Without cash and health benefits, many women could not afford to take maternity leave, or might be forced to return to work before their health allowed, which will deter women to have children, thus, reducing the amount and proportion of children being born. In fact, a 1996 report to the US Congress on family and medical leave policies found that 100 per cent of the women eligible for leave who did not take it said that they could not afford to.

Employers that offer paid maternity leave are signalling their commitment to their employees. This typically translates into increased job satisfaction, greater employee productivity and improved employee loyalty as well as retention of skilled workers. If the women lose their jobs – it then means that specialised and trained labour resources are wasted. No paid maternity leave is a potential deterrent for women from rejoining the workforce, because they are getting no money and wanting to take care of children. Leading practice organisations know the value to their business bottom-line of an important retention strategy such as paid maternity leave and regard it as a core to a suite of flexible workplace practices. Paid maternity leave increases retention rate after maternity leave, reduces recruitment and training costs, improves staff morale and productivity, and a cost-effective means of retaining skilled staff. A two way win. This merely further demonstrates why 12 weeks paid maternity leave is so crucial to a successful Australian economy.

More than 120 countries are providing paid maternity leave, including most industrialised nations apart from Australia, New Zealand and America. The National Australian Bank has done sufficient cost-analysis and state that although paid maternity leave is a substantial investment in their people, they know that they reap the dividends in terms of employee productivity, job satisfaction and retention – this is beneficial to both parties in the long run. Studies have shown that pay for maternity leave has numerous benefits. Holden initially did not offer female employees maternity leave benefits. However, 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave was introduced in 2002, and since then, the number of women who returned to work after taking maternity leave jumped from 65% and 100%. A radical increase, ladies and gentlemen. In 2003, the EOWA Annual Survey found that the retention rate of female employees that had taken maternity leave was 67% at organisations where paid maternity leave was provided. This retention rate was only 56% at organisations where no paid maternity leave provisions were offered.

Furthermore, paid maternity leave has the potential to actually stimulate the economy. There's no doubt that payments like a paid maternity leave scheme are a far more effective way of stimulating the local economy than posting cheques for $900 to everybody. Economic modelling by The Australia Institute shows the actual annual cost to government would be halved by the creation of new jobs. The scheme would create 8,900 new jobs to replace the women on leave, boosting tax revenues by $225 million annually. And in the long run the scheme would pay for itself because women would be more likely to return to the workforce. Paid maternity leave would be a better economic stimulus than cash bonuses, infrastructure spending and tax cuts. There can also be little doubt that financial assistance to such families will be spent rapidly, spent fully, and spent in local shops rather than on foreign holiday destinations. This then leads to a stimulated economy for Australia.
There's no reason to delay on the introduction of this scheme, it’s not a question of whether we should do it or not – it is a question of can we afford not to do it right now. It is time for Australia, as one of the few countries in the developed world with no such scheme to bite the bullet. :owned:

(Extract on my debate on a similar topic: "That Australia should offer 15 weeks of paid maternity leave.")

Problem is... who's gonna pay for it? It's a lot of money if you're paying their normal salary and you have to pay thousands of dollars for no work input. If the government pays for it, taxes will go up a hellava lot, because, again, it's a lot of money involved, especially, if the worker is a highly-paid CEO or something.