TONY RIPS OFF ANOTHER ONE!
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
I may be a conservative at heart but fair dinkum this Coalition kite-flying is giving me vertigo. A “deficit levy" now? Does Tony Abbott want us to financially remember the pain of Labor’s profligacy next time we vote? How about you blokes in Government feel a little of the pain yourselves. How about a bit of pruning at the top... we’re struggling down here!
When I’m broke I don’t take up a collection in my street, I stick with my clapped out 11 year-old Jag, my pet projects get put on hold and I certainly delay buying a new state-of-the-art aircraft.
Which brings me back again to Tony Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. Crumbs, please tell me he’s kidding, because it’s the most inane “pet project” I’ve yet heard of. If Tony wants to see more women in the workforce why is he giving them an incentive to get out of it?
He says the PPL will increase productivity. How? Bloody how? The largest 3,000 companies, those that are expected to foot the bill for all the other companies (even their competitors) will be dodging employing sheilas with serviceable ovaries for the next 100 years! And in 100 years the wheel will have turned and mothers will want to be paid to care for their own babies again.
Even if his silly scheme did make sense, what about the bloody child-care cost component? That’s if you can get child-care. Has Tony considered miscarriages? Has he considered adoptions? Abortions? Failed or successful IVF procedures? Has he considered same sex couples’ parental plans and which gay partner will qualify for the largesse, or will both? Gender non-specific persons?
Multiple payments for twins, triplets? What’s the timing on premature births? Phantom pregnancies? It’s a legislative, administrative and policing nightmare.
How about surrogate pregnancies, which parent qualifies then, or will both? Hmmmm, betcha Tony hasn’t thought of that one.
Has he considered that companies will certainly be targeted by couples wanting to start a family where the mother has no intention of returning to work but is happy to cop the $75,000 for a new car and a European holiday? Has he considered any bloody thing?
Has he considered that the new mother, after collecting this $75,000 is entitled to choose to stay home, or will it be a contractual thing where she can’t change her mind? If she does, will Tony insist she reimburse her employer the $75,000? Good luck with that one.
How can an employer keep a job open for six months? Does he retrain someone else to fill the vacant role only to sack her when (or if) the mother returns? Or will the newly-retrained person then decide to get pregnant herself?
What if the mother doesn’t return to work and the employer, believing she would return, hasn’t bothered retraining anyone else? It’s a bloody dog’s breakfast of a rort and an illegal immigrant gold mine.
Far from improving productivity, it’s flat out counter-productive!
It’s another back-of-the-beer-coaster brainwave concocted by someone who has never been an employer, well, not in the private sector anyway.
And employers in the public sector don’t count because all things wonderful and gold-plated are possible in the Public Service.
Dump the dopey idea, Tony!
You have painted a fluoro target on your back for the Opposition and most of your own Party to aim at.