Coming to an upper class suburb – pardon me: enclave, gated community, village, never a suburb – near you.
Abbott is giving away Nannies.
Well, actually no, Ms Crabb, I may not know as much about politics as you, but I do know one thing:
Taxpayers foot the bill, not the Leader (for now) Of The Opposition
But, let’s backtrack and see what Ms Crabb is talking about.
Tony Abbott’s new
I understand women policy, discussed here Now for Abbott’s nanny state, by Stephanie Peatling in the Sydney Morning Herald, 25 Mar 2012 and here Abbott’s change of heart (25 Mar 2012: The Age) opinion piece from Misha Schubert.
Firstly, hands up who believes there is a change of heart? No it’s not, it’s a continuation of Neo-Con policy of transferring the cost of lifestyle of the ultra rich onto the working poor. It is exactly what the tiny black hearts of Neo-Cons do, treating working people as useful only as ATMs for the rich.
Mischa Schubert calls this
generosity of spirit. Generous? It is just a promise – I could promise to give every Australian a million dollars, but until I come through on that, it is meaningless. It is an empty promise. A non-core, never-ever type of promise.
Schubert proceeds her fan-girling love-letter to Abbott style prose, with
for a man who is meant to have a problem with women, Tony Abbott sure acts like one when managing his calorie intake. In an example of blatant gender-stereotyping of male-behaviours Vrs female behaviours, more suited to the How to be a Good Housewife manuals of the 1950s than a newspaper in 2012.
Although, not being of the right-wing, I’m not quite sure I understand what Tony Abbott is going for here. It cannot possibly be socialism, could it. Government funding the private lifestyle choices of a select few. Government hand-outs? Surely not! It is a luxury, and one that no government has the business to be funding. Giving child care tax breaks to those who can already afford it, and afford it comfortably, is the same kind of socialism that the Neo-Cons of the right scoff at when it comes to providing subsistence-benefits payments to the unemployed or single teen mothers.
Why is Tiny Abbott doing this, as Schubert says
He wants you to know he’s evolved.
This whole sit down interview feels more like Opposition spin, in an attempt to convince female voters to forget his Get-Back-To-The-Kitchen attitude, this is a new Tony, he promises. What? Another one? How many New Tony’s are there? and, how many more will we see before the next election?
Abbott claims that he now understands working mothers. Really? Empathy that has failed to move him for fifty-something years, and surprise-surprise overnight he wakes up with a heart… change, in his perceptions of women. Compassion that had eluded him while his own wife raised their children, and he suddenly finds it only days after making allusions of enacting violence against the female prime minister.
Abbott insists his full-pay parental leave scheme sits squarely with conservative philosophy.
I think a very strong ‘conservative’ case can be made for it because the most conservative thing anyone can do is have a family, and far too many bright, modern women have no children, or fewer children than they would like, because it is just too difficult given the necessities or complexities of modern life.
Perhaps Mr Abbott could have a quiet word to Julie Bishop, his Deputy, about her lack of children.
But, I have a question for Mr Sensitive New Age Man – what about gay and lesbian families? You say it is a true conservative value to have a family, yet you refuse to allow the members of your party a conscience vote on whether to legally recognise marriage equality.
Some families are more family than others?
But why is the lifestyle choices of parents being subsidised by the taxpayers, many of whom have no children. This so-called policy is a continuation of the Liberals Nationals belief that taypayers must fund the private health care of the rich, the private schools of the rich, the private hospitals of the rich. This is not a policy aimed at improving the lives of all women, just the wealthy.
It’s the Liberal way. It is not a cost-of-living issue, this is a lifestyle issue. Funded by taxpayers. But we must preserve their Right To Choose! For the rich, the right-to-choose is another way of saying, transfer the paying the bills onto someone else. It is about the wealthy and their freedom of choice, but, for the poor it’s about their right to continue paying for it from their PAYE, or… no, PAYE taxpayers have no options.
And, does Australia have enough qualified child carers to cater for this policy?
Perhaps Abbott plans to import skilled migrants, in order to provide these nannies. There must be Third World workers waiting for visas to fill this role. As long as they don’t arrive by boat, come on in. More importantly, will Abbott face the same scrutiny he levelled at Minister Garrett over the pink-batts scheme if one of these nannies does harm to one of their clients?
Will these nannies by paid a fair wage?
The poverty line in India has been reclassified as 44 cents a day India govt. accused of concealing poverty by lowering poverty line to 44 cents per day, surely there are some people in this country willing to work for 45 cents a day.
Will the nannies be on work-choices-wages?
Since nannies don’t contribute to the
national economy to the same extent as tax-minimising mining multi-nationals, do these nannies even deserve a full wage
Simply more middle class welfare, after all someone else has to pay for all those babies brought into the world for their parents to qualify for Costello’s middle class baby-bonus. Will the nannies by mean-tested? Can multi-millionaires claim this?
Where will the money to fund this policy come from? Unlike Annabel Crabb, I seriously doubt that Tony Abbott will be paying for it. So the money will have to be found somewhere? You can’t maintain a budget surplus otherwise – services to the the disadvantaged, the working-poor, the aged, they may have to have their budgets
Are the faceless billionaires in this country in such desperate dire-straits that they need the taxpayer to step in and financially looking after their offspring? If so, then perhaps this is a situation best dealt with by children’s services and not throwing more taxpayer money at it.
image of Fran Drescher and Charles Shaughnessy in The Nanny , used for illustrative purposes and is no way meant to suggest they or the copyright holders in anyway endorse the contents of this post
text by @redglitterx