Liberal-National Coalition's gold-plated paid parental leave handed out to wealthy is poor policy Tony Abbott's diamond-encrusted paid maternity leave scheme is is upper-middle-class welfare gone barking mad. TONY Abbott's diamond-encrusted paid maternity leave scheme is the policy equivalent of a very full nappy. And from the stench of it the kid has recently started on solids. It makes little political sense, borders on economic vandalism and, via obscenely generous handouts to the very wealthiest Australians, does far more to wage "class war" than any policy prescription that Abbott and his claque of urgers have attacked Labor for in recent years. It is also out of whack with paid parental schemes elsewhere in the world. Let's put this into some perspective. What Abbott is proposing is a taxpayer subsidy so women on salaries of up to $150,000 a year can take six months off on full pay. That is a handout that is worth more than the average Australian full-time yearly wage and all you have to do to qualify for it is breed. The Opposition policy document in part tries to justify this by arguing that of the 33 OECD countries that offer paid parental leave schemes, Australia is one of only two that isn't "based on a replacement wage." This is disingenuous in the extreme and fails to stand up to even the most cursory of fact checking. America doesn't offer paid leave, so let's try the UK shall we? There, according to Her Majesty's Government, a new mum is entitled to 90 per cent of average weekly earnings (before tax) for only the first six weeks and then - and here is the rub - "Pound136.78 or 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks." That would be $A230, against the $620 a week Australian mums already receive under the existing Labor scheme linked to the minimum wage. What of our nearest and dearest neighbour, New Zealand? Glad you asked. There the Government says that, for just 14 weeks, "the maximum level of payment is currently $NZ488.17 ($A430) per week before tax. You are entitled to either your gross weekly rate of pay (your pay before tax) or $488.17, whichever is lower. Start to get the picture? There is a gulf of difference between "based on" a replacement wage and paying it in full for six months to people earning up to $150k. What Abbott is proposing - and remember this is one of his exploding thought bubbles announced without first consulting shadow cabinet - is a rolled gold transfer of wealth to those in our society who need it the least. Is it any wonder he chose to launch this dog of a policy in the inner Melbourne suburb of Malvern, which real estate guides variously describe as "affluent," "desirable" and "upper middle class"? Apparently the "Budget emergency" that Abbott uses to frighten small children, kittens and swinging voters is so dire that a Coalition government will kill off the Low Income Earners Superannuation Contribution and scrap the schoolkids bonus, but still manage to find millions for Malvern mummies. And just where is this money coming from? Another excellent question, but one that is slightly harder to answer because when it comes to costed policies the Opposition is more evasive than a stealth bomber. What we do know is that a portion of the $5.5 billion a year cost of the PPL scheme will be met by a Great Big New Tax of 1.5 per cent on Australia's 3000 largest companies. And those big companies such as Coles, Woolworths, Telstra and the banks would never dream of passing such extra costs on would they? The PPL tax will, however, be offset by a separate company tax cut of the same amount, applying to all companies, but we have no idea yet how this will be funded, particularly as an Abbott government will also abolish the mining tax and the carbon tax for the loss of yet more billions in revenue. And no, before you ask, I can't make the numbers add up either. But even if this does leave a great smoking crater in the Budget, won't it be good for the economy and help new mums get back into the work force? In a word, no. As the Productivity Commission notes: "Full replacement wages for highly educated, well-paid women would be very costly for taxpayers and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits." The big financial problem confronting most parents is not the cost of a child in the first few months, but the often crippling expenses associated with child care when a parent wants to re-enter the workforce. In this respect the Abbott PPL scheme offers $5.5 billion in incentives to stay at home and nothing in the way of help for working mothers. It is upper-middle-class welfare gone barking mad.