Tony Abbott in mother of all policy battles overpaid parental leave scheme Tony Abbott forced the paid parental leave policy on his party on International Women's Day in 2010 as his "captain's call." Picture: Stuart Mcevoy Source: News Limited TONY Abbott loves a political fight. He often starts them. But this time the eyes he sees staring back at him are, unusually, in his own trench. He's at odds with Liberal elders Peter Costello and Jeff Kennett. He's rejected the pleas of the Business Council, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. WA Premier Colin Barnett is not with him. Several on the Liberal back bench, a few on the front bench, and most in the Nationals camp are also screaming "no." But it's the "no" Abbott doesn't want to hear. The battle is over the size, scope, cost, funding and very existence of Abbott's taxpayer-funded paid parental leave scheme. And who stands with Abbott in this battle? Many women, including feminists who on other days can't stand him. Some unionists, who pretend they're not there, and the Greens, who could turn out to be crucial in this clash. Joe Hockey, who may be the treasurer in just 15 days, says "I am happy to invest in Tony Abbott's beliefs." That's what this is - a test of faith in Abbott. The Opposition Leader doesn't deny the division in his ranks but says his mates in the opposite trench have been "slow to adjust on this," while he has been "on a journey" and has a "convert's zeal." Abbott forced this policy on his party on International Women's Day in 2010 as his "captain's call" and said it was better to seek forgiveness than ask permission. That's because it's at odds with his attack that Labor's spending has caused debt and deficit blowouts. But for Abbott it has become his self-described "signature" policy and he clings to it as a talisman that shows he is a modern man. He launched it long before Julia Gillard accused him of misogyny and sexism but it was - and still is - aimed at perceptions in some quarters that some women have a problem with the Liberal leader. In the Howard years Abbott said a paid parental leave scheme would only happen over the government's dead body. And it has. From the ashes is the Abbott-led party, with parental leave as its biggest-spending election commitment. There are plenty of other promises Abbott says he wants to deliver but can't, and Labor tax rises and spending cuts he doesn't like but will keep, because of what he calls the "Budget emergency." Yet this $5.5 billion-a-year policy stays, despite economists saying the Budget can't afford it, and Abbott and his team looking wobbly when they try to explain the detail. It would start on July 1, 2015, and working women would receive 26 weeks parental leave at their actual salary, plus superannuation. There is no means test so millionaires can get it, but it would be capped at an income of $150,000 so the top payout would be $75,000 plus super. Under Labor's scheme, which began in 2011, women receive 18 weeks at the minimum wage of $622 a week, which is worth $11,200. Abbott's pitch is that a woman earning the average wage of $65,000 gets $32,500 from him and would be $21,300 better off. A woman at the top end earning $150,000 or more would be $63,800 better off, and this is what some of Abbott's own team deride as a "Rolls-Royce" scheme. Kevin Rudd says it is unfair that millionaires can get $75,000 while Abbott cuts the SchoolKids Bonus and asks what else is being cut. The Liberals are keeping the full detail under wraps for now. With voting already open and one million people to cast their ballot early, it seems to be hiding bad news until the advertising blackout in the final 72 hours of the campaign. Over the normal four-year cycle, the price tag is $22 billion. The Coalition insists it has been "fully funded and fully costed" by the Parliamentary Budget Office but won't release the document. It is imposing a 1.5 per cent tax on companies earning more than $5 million in taxable income, which will hit 3000 companies. That cancels out Abbott's company tax cut from 30 to 28.5 per cent. For big firms it will just be a paperwork churn. ANZ Bank and Bluescope Steel are among those that are not happy. THE Coalition said the levy would pay for most of the scheme; now it appears it will be less than half. Another flash point is a $1.6 billion slug on shareholders such as self-funded retirees and any worker with a super fund. The "levy" won't get franking credits, which means no tax break on dividends. A sign of Abbott's confidence is he says the economy will be better under his stewardship when he gets rid of the carbon and mining taxes and slashes red tape, and dividends will be bigger, so don't worry about it. He'll also use what Labor already spends, but is banking on several hundred million dollars coming from the states. WA's Barnett says he won't be contributing any money for a scheme that's "too generous." But small business is cheering. They will get big business benefits for their staff and they won't have to pay for it or do the paperwork. Abbott says it is not fair that women working for big companies or government already get generous parental leave but lower- and middle-income women are forced to make do with the minimum wage. He says they get sick leave and holiday pay at actual wage but only cut-price parental leave. Critics warn the scheme is open to manipulation and rorting, especially by family businesses inflating salaries to $150,000 just to get the $75,000 windfall from taxpayers. Others say the money would be better spent to make childcare more affordable. There's talk of a post-election revolt by Coalition MPs. If Abbott wins the election he will need to get it through the Senate, where the Greens may hold the vital numbers. Just like the Democrats took the rough edges off Howard's GST after the 1998 election, the Greens will probably support Abbott on the condition he lowers the maximum payout to $50,000 and restores the tax break on shares. Fancy that. Abbott might have to rely on the political party he says is the most extreme to pass a popular policy his own supporters say is equally extreme.