This morning I found myself shouting at my radio. This doesn’t happen very often but in my defence, I was provoked. The target of my shouting was federal Labor minister Chris Bowen who was himself having a barney with Liberal shadow minster Chris Pyne. Radio National’s Fran Kelly was trying to adjudicate. Lucky she couldn’t hear me shouting as well.
It was a polarised debate around the issue of parental leave and who should pay. It was an odd moment where you wonder if you’re hearing right when the Labor minister is arguing against big business having to pay a new tax and the Liberal minister arguing that the rights of women and families need to come first.
Huh? Did I miss the memo that said the major political parties would switch ideologies while I was sleeping? Or the tweet that said the Liberal party would now be spelt with a small ‘l’?
Everyone is talking about Tony Abbott’s proposed parental leave scheme, myself included. I started this week by having breakfast with Tony Abbott (you can read about the lead up to our peace talks here – I’ll be writing a column about how it went down shortly) and so I’ve watched the past couple of days unfold with great interest.
What do I think of this scheme that aims to deliver 6 months paid parental leave at your full salary up to $150K to be paid for by a levy on big business?
I think it’s a game-changer. Whether it comes off or not it’s radical and ambitious and sets a benchmark of 26 weeks instead of the 18 that was originally proposed by Labor. Some think it’s a shrewd and cynical political move that allows Abbott to reverse his reputation for being anti-women in an instant. It’s certainly stopped a lot of Abbott opponents in their tracks. If you’re a woman (or man) of baby-making age, it’s a difficult scheme to fault from a personal point of view.
I applaud the time-frame of 6 months and I applaud the idea of the payment being at full wage. No matter what you earn, your life is always structured around that income. Taking 6 months off is impossible if your maternity leave only covers a fraction of your former income.
Also, I don’t buy the argument by some that “we’d all like to take six months off but what if you don’t have kids?”.
The idea of parental leave is always far too focussed on the parents but let’s acknowledge the fact that the main beneficiary in having your mother or father around to be your primary carer in the first six months of your life is THE BABY.
Make no mistake, parental/maternity leave is not a health retreat. It is not a holiday or a sabbatical. Caring for a newborn is some of the most challenging work you will ever do in your life. An easy ride it is not.
So why do we make it that much more difficult by overlaying economic stress over the top of it due to the fact we are only 2 industrialised countries IN THE WORLD (hello America) who have no formal paid parental leave scheme.
I’ve asked regular Mamamia contributor Julie Cowdroy to do a bit of a snapshot of Tony Abbott’s parental leave proposal and also of the proposal currently being considered by the government. She writes….
Monday was International Women’s Day and Tony Abbott came bearing gifts. Well, pledges and plans anyway. In a surprise announcement (even to members of his own party), Mr Abbott has proposed a plan where women would be entitled to 26 weeks paid parental leave. According to Tony Abbott the plan still needs consultation and proper costing, which will be worked out, and then presented as a formal policy in the coming months.
So, what does this proposed scheme look like? A few details (although, not many) were outlined. Most notably, is that women would be entitled to parental/maternity leave that matches their income at the time of the birth of their child. The rationale is that by continuing their existing salary, they will be encouraged to stay at home for the recommended 6 months after birth. Some say this is perfectly fine and makes sense when parental leave is funded privately, but when it comes to public money, some questions do arise.
Tory Maguire raised this issue on the Punch today.
She says:
“There’s an argument that women on higher incomes pay more tax and therefore should reap higher benefits.
It might be logical, but it’s not fair. If our whole tax system was based on that principal our society would end up totally out of whack.
Women (and men obviously) should be free to negotiate what ever terms they can with their employers – if you can get a generous employer-funded maternity leave scheme based on a higher-than-average income bravo.
But when it comes to a government subsidy, funded by taxpayers, I reckon all parents should be in the same boat. I would be uncomfortable with the government paying me more or less than the woman sitting next to me at work, even if, as Mr Abbott proposes, the scheme would have a generous cap.
There’s already a simmering tension built into both the Government’s scheme, which starts on January 1 next year, and Mr Abbott’s plan, in that it appears to significantly benefit working women.
What we don’t need is a scheme that pits all women against each other in a battle to get the most out of the government.
Caring for a newborn is hard for everyone – regardless how high or low they are on the income scale.”
In contrast to the Coalition’s plan, the ALP’s policy pays the minimum wage to all primary caregivers despite what they are earning in their respective jobs.
Another factor to consider is that Abbott’s plan would be funded by a 1.7% levy paid by businesses that earn more than $5 million per annum. This makes the legislation a potentially contentious issue, which could lead to a parliamentary stalemate (ETS anyone?).
The Rudd government’s plan for a federally funded 18 weeks parental leave scheme on the minimum wage would then be in jeopardy and parents would be no better off until a new agreement was worked out. Australian parents would have to wait even longer than they already have for a new policy. The Rudd government’s policy was expected to begin in January 2011.
Flawed as it may be, it’s better than the current policy of no compulsory paid parental leave. But, as Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and the Greens have stated, it is a good proposal that needs to be strongly considered to ensure see women do get the recommended 6 months at home.
Here is a snapshot of both plans.
ALP & COALITION PLANS FOR A PARENTAL LEAVE SCHEME
Duration of entitlements
- ALP: 18 weeks
- Coalition: 26 weeks
Amount given
- ALP: Minimum wage ($544 per week)
- Coalition: Would match individual current salaries up to $150K
Who pays?
- ALP: Tax-payers
- Coalition: Big business
Total cost
- ALP: $260 million
- Coalition: $2.7 billion
(Crikey have collated different articles and perspectives here )
I have to disagree with Tory Maguire and others who claim that the idea of the payment being at the mother’s full wage is unfair. Why is it unfair? Is it unfair that someone earns more than me, whether I have kids or not? No, it’s just life. There will always be people who earn more and less than me. I don’t buy the lowest common denominator argument when it comes to parental leave.
One area that does need further consideration however, is that of women who are not employed when they have a baby. What if it’s baby #2 or 3 or 4? Do they get nothing? Does that not automatically devalue the work they do?
Whatever happens, I am delighted that this issue is on the public agenda and being debated. That’s the only way forward.
Pregnancy, plans, policies, promises, pledges, parental leave… What are your thoughts? Do you think Abbott is onto something? Which plan do you prefer? Or do you have a proposal of your own? Canberra is listening……
[image]
UPDATE 4pm: So why did Tony Abbott change his view?
This clue from an interview with The Australian in 2009:
“….conservatives have had reservations about paid maternity leave schemes because, they think, mothers’ primary responsibility is to their children. The further argument that paid maternity leave (but not sick leave, holiday pay or compulsory superannuation levies) would be an intolerable burden on small business has helped to cast, I suspect, a “blokey” pall over conservatism.
Perhaps more than anything else, this suggestion that mothers in the paid workforce might be shirking their real responsibilities explains why there are so few outspoken conservative women. Only a man could think that working might reduce a mother’s responsibilities rather than add to them.
In any event, the absence of a national paid maternity leave scheme has certainly not ensured that the vast majority of women remain primarily homemakers. Instead, it’s meant that many have not had the children that they might have had but for the lack of better financial support. Far from conceding too much to feminism, a paid maternity leave scheme would make it easier for more women to choose the most traditional role of all.”
More importantly, does his motivation even matter so long as we get a proper paid parental leave scheme?
Comments
399 Comments so far
It matters to the children, if they could vote, it would be to see their mother at home, when they get home from school.
If you young ones, (Yes you could tell I was an oldie) didn’t demand the four bedroom home with all the trimmings, you could afford to stay home with your kids.
If you can’t afford to stay home, dont have the kids.
You shuttle the kids out the door in the early hours, and arrive home late, to take away, you don’t have time to talk to your kids.
And you will wonder why they won’t need you when they become teenagers.
i object to the taxpayers and the employers coughing up to pay for your finances.
If you are earning 150 thousand a year, you don’t need paid maternity leave
loading...
I hope as I get older that I can still stay open-minded to the younger generations to understand their struggles in a changing/fast paced world.
Step down from your ivory tower and REALLY understand the cost of a mortgage on ANY house in today’s market.
Ask their children if they prefer to play with their peers in after school care or be home with their mum. Most school kids I know LOVE after school care.
Take a look in the employment pages and report back on how many jobs you find which allow you be there before and after school.
Step inside the homes of working mums and you will find plenty of women quite capable of still keeping their finger on the pulse with what is happening in their children’s lives. Women are amazing when it comes to multi-tasking.
If you choose to object to taxpayer dollars funding maternity leave then I will choose to object to paying the pension to baby boomers who came through a booming property market and should be set for life (as long as we’re generalising).
Oh – and I am no bitter working mother defending my stance either. I am actually a full time stay at home mum who understands that some women are better mums when they are working and some women have no choice but to return to work because of the financial climate.
loading...
Does the fact that my husband and I fought hard to save the deposit and finally were able to buy a small, simple 2.5 bedroom, 1 bathroom house on the outskirts of the metro area, and still couldn’t afford to have one of us completely without income mean we should not have children?
We aren’t frittering our cash on luxuries: The only holiday away from home we’ve had in 13 years was 8 days interstate for our honeymoon; We have one car between us; We eat out at a restaurant probably once a month. We go to the movies about twice a year; I sew and opp-shop most of my own clothes.
I also wasn’t born 50+ years earlier, when home-price to income ratio was much lower.
Thankfully my current employer has a different perspective on the importance of a) raising future generations and b) keeping skilled employees who are also parents.
This is not about supporting people’s lifestyle, but recognising the financial pressures that frequently prevent people from having children.
p.s. yeah I know I’m coming in late, but this type of attitude really gets my goat!
loading...
I was lucky to receive 14 weeks full maternity leave pay from my employer. And I took off 16 months to be with my child. In my opinion maternity leave pay should be 12 months to encourage parents to remain at home with their baby in their most important developmental year.
As for the comment “we’d all like to take six months off but what if you don’t have kids?” – before I went on maternity leave some people kept saying ‘enjoy your holidays’. People without children seem to think being with a child is equivalent to holidays. One guy even said to me that he was so jealous of me and thought it was so unfair that I had the excuse of having a baby to take time off!!!!!!!! Since having my daughter I have NEVER worked harder in my entire life (and I have in fact had several different careers!) Being a stay at home mother is not easy at all. It is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week work.
loading...
I’ve just started my maternity leave, and am lucky enough to work for an employer that pays 8 weeks maternity leave. We’ve also been saving extra money each month into our mortgage for the last few year with the knowledge that we were planning to have kids…kind of takes the sponteneity out of the whole experience.
It saddens me to know that although my husband and I are lucky that we both have decent jobs and employers we will still have to struggle and cut right back to basics in order for me to be at home with baby for a full 12 months. It makes me scared to think of what other people who aren’t as lucky as us are forced to do. It seems that we’re stuck in a catch-22 situation. Stay at home and don’t earn (but spend valuable time with our new humans), or go back to work, pay someone else to care for our kids (and feel miserable and ripped off at the end).
I’m all for paid maternity leave, but am sceptical that the government will ever truly commit to a sensible scheme that will work long term – or will even see the light of day once an election has passed. I am also of the belief that big business shouldn’t be required to fund a scheme for all other workers. It needs to be funded overall from tax garnered from all businesses.
I’m glad that the issue has been raised as its so crucial to all people – even if you’re not planning on having kids, it impacts you through other aspects of life. Its just such a shame that these days, both parents are required to work in order to meet basic costs of housing, sustenance etc and that there is limited recognition of what societal benefit can be generated from having children spend vital time with their parent/s.
loading...
I myself am a mother of a 14 month old boy. I went back to part time work when he was just shy of 5 months
and it almost killed me leaving him, but I worked around my husbands hours so he was always with one of us and not in daycare. I have just given up work about 2 months ago because we are no longer able to work my hours around his. And let me tell you we’re struggling. I get about $100 a fortnight from the government for my son which has always been used for the household i.e food, formula or clothes for my son. We are unexpectedly having another baby in September and like the baby bonus we recieved for our son we will get this one fortnightly, to help with everyday living. I am a full time external uni student and I recieve no benefits for that either. I don’t expect the government to pay me maternity leave, the baby bonus is enough. We have managed, barely, through job losses, having to move and rent our house out for my husband to get a job 2.5 hours from home and we will survive through an unplanned pregnancy, by cutting back. Perhaps new parents need to do just that, cut back and not rely on others to pay there way.
loading...
I think something that we’re missing here is that not every baby is planned. Of course, if you plan ahead and save up this is a good strategy, but what if you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant? Should you abort the baby because without government assistance you can’t afford it?
And what exactly is the plan with single mothers? My father skipped out on me and my mum when I was still in nappies and didn’t pay a cent in child support. Should the government NOT have paid her to support me? I think this is a very slippery slope we’re heading down here.
As someone said earlier, no one (except perhaps a few delusional crackheads) has a baby solely for the purpose of getting government payouts. They have a baby because they want to have a baby. I think the baby bonus and paid maternity leave is a small scratch on the surface of taxpayers’ money and a more than worthwhile investment.
loading...
No business, government or society should be paying for anyone to have children. It is a choice and the responsibility of the parents.
If you cant afford to take time away from work, then the harsh reality is that you cant afford to have children.
loading...
If everyone who isn’t well off financially chose not to have children then businesses, government and society would be completely stuffed.
loading...
I guess what I am trying to say is that the people who this will directly affect (middle to upper income earners) are not the members of society that truely need assistance.
loading...
I disagree. There will always be people who want to have children. That does not change the reality of the finacial burden. IMO what Belle states is quite correct. It’s just taking personal responsibility. Sure we need as a society to have a safety net for those who find themselves in adverse circumstances – but not a hammock.
loading...
No business should have to pay for it. It’s unfair to women who choose not to or can’t have kids. Their chance of employment and promotion would diminish.
The government could set up a paretanl-fund, something like super where people can put away money and the government can add to that account so there is money when the baby is born….this would be nice.
loading...
My generation believed it was the parents’ responsibility to plan for children and raise them.
Some worked and some stayed home to serve up lamingtons and milk and answers to awkward questions about the birds and the bees and why Aunt Myrtle has a wart on her nose. When (and why) did it become the government’s responsibility to fund our dreams?
And here’s a ps. No matter what we say we’re going to do when we go off to full paid maternity leave, most of us come back to part time work. Will women taking maternity on full time pay, be giving big business a refund?
loading...
And what about the women who plan to return to work and take their maternity leave pay only to decide there is no way in hell they could leave their 6 month old baby? Do they then have to pay the whole lot back? My worry is that this will make first time mums commit to something that they really wont fully comprehend until the baby is in their arms.
loading...
In the push to recognise womens rights we always lose sight of childrens rights and what is in their best interests. When someone does (eg Mem Fox) they get howled down by people who only want to see it from their own point of view. Maybe it was time we had an open honest discussion about what children really need to thrive and be happy emotionally secure people.
Most of us try to get the right mix for our family – happy mum=happy family. But I’m sure we all know some militant working mums whose choices to work huge hours are impacting on their kids and they would never admit to it or choose to see it. Surely there should be someone to stand up for their kids?
loading...
What codswallop. There are plenty of happy working mums out there with happy well adjusted children – just as there are plenty of anal, bored stay at home mums with just as anally retentive children. Ya just can’t generalise.
loading...
We make the choice to have children if you think the state should be subsidising your children then the state should also have ownership over those children and have the right to send them to war or force them into an occupation of the states choice.
loading...
Now that is an interesting comment….I am not pro the concept, but I think it raises valid questions.
loading...
This subject is one that is guaranteed to get me fired up every time. I am constantly amazed at the short term view taken by most on this subject every time it comes up. Here are some random thoughts to ponder.
When raising the fact that employers would have to ‘subsidise’ parents who take maternity/paternity leave consider the following:
1. As TAXPAYERS, ALL of us are subsidising future employees (male and female) when we encourage people to stay at school an extra 2 years to complete the HSC, or to pursue further education via TAFE or university (HECS anyone)?
2. Many EMPLOYERS are more than willing to subsidise their employees to complete apprecticeships, training, traineeships or post-graduate studies. Often these pursuits take many years to complete and can be a burden on others in the workplace as people require time off or reduced hours to complete these studies.
3. Many EMPLOYERS also provide support to employees (non-financial but through job retention) by providing them opportunities to take time off to travel (anyone for 12 months backpacking) / study / ‘find themselves’ or whatever.
Given this can we please stop talking about taxpayers and business ‘subsidising’ parents who take leave to look after their children like it is the first time this has happened. FYI people it has been going long before anyone heads into the delivery suite!
As a society are we really saying to women that YES we encourage you to get an education and experience in the workforce (and this experience can be as much as 15 yrs in the workforce before children arrive), but I’m sorry we cannot accomodate some flexibility (say 12 weeks paid maternity leave and some flexible hours upon returning to work) for what is a short period in the context of a persons entire working life (40+ years)?
When I was on (unpaid) maternity leave with my first child I was astounded by the number of highly educated and experienced women opting out of the workforce completely because their employers could not provide them with some flexibility in returning to work. As a society are we really saying we can afford to waste these experienced and talented resources (which have already been subsidised by taxpayers)!
Rather than endlessly pondering the pros and cons of one political party’s 3-6 month proposal against another, surely we would be better off considering ways to provide parents with workable solutions to return to the workforce while improving their work / family life balance. Isn’t this a better long term outcome for all??
loading...
Fedup, love your comment! well said! love ooxx
loading...
that was me above love ooxx
loading...
Oh you’re amazing! Such a great comment! xxxxxx
loading...
Yeah! and if the market isn’t providing those opportunities it’s telling us… we aren’t needed. Hurts, but theys the facts.
loading...
Being a woman of child bearing age, I am always interested to read people’s opinions on these debates. I have read through about 1/2 so I apologise if someone else has already picked this up, but it seems to me the main poin of a paid maternity scheme has been completely missed. These schemes were originally designed to keep women in the work force, to encourage them back to work after the birth of their child. I am not sure when the argument became about the government supporting women to stay home with their children. While from a personal, money loving perspective, I love the idea of a paid maternity scheme, my actual opinion is that if you want to have children, and be able to stay home with them, then you budget, plan and save. I believe in choice for everyone, so if you want to have children and stay home with them, and you can afford to, great, ir if you want to have a child while still maintaining a career and you can afford to, then that is also great. I guess the point I just wanted to make was about these being schemes to encourage a greater workforce, not about the care of the child.
loading...
Why on earth the Government doesn’t let women/families (i.e. mother/father, mother/mother, father/father – I don’t want to discriminate – parenting comes in all configurations), access our super funds if we need to fund our time out to have a baby???? The Government has made super mandatory so that it doesn’t have to ‘fund’ our old age in the form of pensions, so why don’t they – in the meantime, until they sort out a solution – let us dip into our own ‘forced savings’ if we want to?
loading...
So cannot agree with you more.
One of my friends who is a lawyer mentioned it has something about our legal system being underpinned by the Westminster system and the archaic definition of “Family” which is not longer relevant in a progressive Western society.
Not a lawyer my self – I am a HR Manager, and discrimination in any form disgusts me.
loading...
What you’re suggesting might sound like a simple, easy solution, however the reality is that most of us still aren’t going to have enough super to sustain ourselves in later life. Its been acknowledged that the 9% compulsory contribution isn’t enough. Once the baby boomers retire and start taking their pensions etc, there isn’t going to be much left in the pot for those of us retiring in 30-40 years. So – hold on to your super.
loading...
I feel very strongly about providing assistance for working mothers and having maternity leave provisions. I am fortunate to have a very high income, and am blessed with the ability to work part-time because of this. My income provides many many luxuries that we really dont need and I would not expect companies / tax payers to fit the bill for these. I would rather money be redirected to public services for children that are accessible by the whole community. Having an income during this time to assist with basics such as rent/ mortgage food and bills would be of great benefit and may encourage mothers to stay home longer, however, I do feel that the payment should be the same for all women taking maternity leave if it is to be publicly funded. This is not about individual families being able to sustain a lifestyle of luxury – it is about what is best for all children.
loading...
Well said Lu!!
loading...
woopsie, commented a response too early!
loading...
What you may deem to be a ‘luxury’ may to someone else be a ‘necessity’ or ‘standard’ to their life. We all live relative to our means and the fact remains, that to the majority of people, taking time out of full-time employment means a compete stop to their normal flow of income. That in itself stops mothers from spending quality time with their newborns when they are forced to return to work to turn that tap of income stream back on. Like it or not, a woman is going to have to return back to work quicker than someone who was on the minimum wage in the first place because he/she is looking at a major loss to their normal income – why should they & their children be disadvantaged – because they earn more money? Ridiculous.
That woman on $150k a year is contributing around $70k (!! which is probably the min wage x 3) a year in taxes and doing her fair share of providing to the public services the whole community enjoys – why does the thought of her being paid the same amount for maternity leave scare so many people? Reeks of discrimination to me.
loading...
Hi Nannette. For a salary of 150k per year, the annual tax is closer to about 46k. All families need to plan to mainitain the ‘standard’ to their life. For me, the reason that I am uncomfortable with the idea of being paid my normal income for extended maternity leave is that I am simply not doing the job that I am originally paid for. The long office hours, hard decisions and workplace stress that directly relate to my employment simply do not apply. While I welcome maternity payments, I do believe that there needs to be an equality among all mothers as we are all doing the same job ie raising our newborn at home. .
loading...
Social support from public funds is best funneled to those that need it most- Those not fortunate enough or functional enough to look after them selves.
When functional weathly familes are holding there hands out while the disadvantaged keep going without is kind of selfish and not community spirited.
I’m not against paid maternity leave. I just think the funds could be better directed
loading...
I agree that the payments should be the same for everyone, and perhaps then the Rudd scheme could be extended to 26 months at the minimum wage with a smaller levy on big business to make up the difference. Otherwise it creates a further divide between women and paying at full pay and taxing business will cost jobs for women, and the women most likely to lose their jobs are the ones at the smaller end of the pay scale.
loading...
Having children may not be a ‘lifestyle’ choice but having numerous (lets say more than 2 for argument’s sake) children is definitely a personal choice that probably has little to do with lofty ideals of perpetuating the species. Hence, if this sort of thing is brought in, I think it should be capped to a maximum of two children. I also think that single women and women who have the support of a partner should not be treated equally in this instance.
loading...
i think people should be capped to a maximum of one child per couple full stop.
loading...
Yeah that’s working out really well in China I hear
loading...
despite their human rights issues their economy is stronger than ours and their living standard has improved dramatically so yeah i guess it has worked
loading...
Not everyone has children with the belief / hope that they can milk the system for as much as they can. Newsflash, some people have children because they love children and want to give them a loving happy life. And do the best they can to provide for their children themselves. I have 4 children and have not expected or received handouts for any of them. All were born pre baby bonus, all were born in private hospitals, no paid maternity leave, no family benefits, all went to preschools (as opposed to childcare so no childcare rebate was able to be claimed) and we have private medical cover so we pay for their medical and dental expenses. My husband pays tax and I dont like the idea of this going to help wealthy dual income families subsidise their childraising expenses.
loading...
Bertha: How do you explain multiple births?
loading...
Bertha did you write “how to lose friends and alienate people”…
loading...
Bertha: A country that is facing a crisis because they have been locking up/aborting/dumping their baby girls in favour of sons has an expiry date on a strong economy.
loading...
I am a business owner and mother so I am looking at this from the perspective of the impact this will have on me. What isn’t mentioned in the above summary is how this will effect businesses – apparently it is businesses with revenue of $5m or more – what Tony Abbott hasn’t been clear on, is whether the $5m is net or gross, of which there is a BIG difference. Either way, $5m might seem like a lot but it ISN’T. It is grossly unfair to ask the private sector to fund this scheme. When I already employ a vast number of people, use all Australian suppliers, make sure we are as ‘green’ as possible and continue to plough profits back in to the business to keep this cycle going and take modist profits out (FYI, a business with a turnover of $5m could – on average – possibly expect to take a net profit of 20% which would equal $1m on which you have to pay 30% tax, leaving you with $700k. Before you think that is a lot of money, consider that there may be multiple shareholders to divide this up by and then remember that we have just come out of a recession and if you managed to make 20% then you did bloody well) – then I am really pissed off to have to consider and now plan for the fact that this scheme may impact my businesses future. We already give our female employees 4 months paid maternity leave, so why in the hell should we have to now have to fund everyone else? Not fair. Not economically and not socially.
As a mother, I have had to fund my own maternity leave on two occasions – I did this, like everyone else with a huge financial impact on my family. Being self employed, I didn’t really get a ‘break’ – you can’t ever switch off from your own business and I had to employ additional resources to cover my absence. So when I say I had to ‘fund’ my maternity leave, I literally mean I had to FUND it. So as someone who has had to fund not only my leave, but several employees maternity leave and have a business that would be impacted by this policy, then I stand firmly against this. I am not incredibly financially wealthy but via my business, I am hoping to secure my and my children’s future. Why should I have to pay my taxes and then be asked to pay more? We are already doing the right thing by our own employees and I am more than happy to do this – I wish more businesses would privately provide this scheme as it is a tax deduction at the very least. But as far as everyone else….. that should be a policy funded by the government and while I am on this bandwagon, I will just add that the funding should be based on your current income – if you happen to earn a decent salary, you have paid your taxes and you certainly won’t be eligible for any other government subsidies! To say that a woman earning $150k per year can only be paid the minimum wage is a slap in the face to her. Oh, I could go on about this forever……..
loading...
Thanks for your insight. It’s valuable to have a perspective from a business owner on this issue.
loading...
My husband and I have a high turnover, but high-cost business. For us, this new scheme would mean that in order to pay our company’s ‘contribution’, some of our employees will unfortunately be joining the unemployment line.
loading...
I would love you to take a look at this site hllp;//rome-angloinfo.com/countries/italy/works9.asp. as far as I remember this right has been in place for long time , and it is founded by tax payers, to me that in a country as modern as Australia that the year 2010 does not have this kind of right in place for women is mind boggling and that we are still discussing it even more so, we have to look at countries that do have this right in place, like Denmark, France ect ect and ask ourself if they can do it why can we?! love to all ooxx
loading...
Can I just say I’m beyond sick of women writing about having to ‘sacrifice’ their career to have a child and not being giving enough by either government in return. If it’s such a sacrifice to have a child then dont have one. We all have to face up to the fact that we can’t do everything it’s just not possible. Sometimes life’s tough and you can’t have your cake and eat it too. My husband can’t breast feed but he’s not sitting in the fetal position on the floor trying to come to grips with it, just like I couldn’t possibly be worrying about a patient coming out of a long surgery and also trying to find lost lego, organise a bag for swimming and take a toddler for their needles all at once. We just can’t do everything. So you either dedicate your self to one or the other, me I found having kids wonderful, hence- more followed!
I’m leaning towards Anon’s comments about enjoying her maternity leave. Yes having a baby is tiring etc etc but itf it’s so bloody abhorrent to most women why in the hell are you doing it and going back for a second? This is not China or India where we are having children to use as an old age home later down the track. We do need to take some responsibility for ourselves and not expect the government to constantly take care of us when it comes to having children or we’re really just being children ourselves.
loading...
Bravo!
loading...
I consider anon’s comments to be incredibly disrespectful and dismissive of the people who’ve been honest enough to admit here that parenting is much more difficult than they realised before they were immersed in it, and your comments are borderline. I don’t believe anyone has said anything about parenthood being abhorrent, don’t really know where you’re coming from there. And frankly, the question of paid maternity leave and parenting being difficult are not related. For me, looking after one child at home is much more difficult than dealing with the many children in a corporate environment, but it doesn’t mean I don’t want to do it or expect to be paid by the government to do so.
My view on paid parental leave is that in a perfect world there would be some support for parents taking time out, preferably linked to their income prior to taking that time out, but the likelihood of such a sensible thing happening is limited. In the meantime people will get on with the business of raising their children like they have for the rest of time.
loading...
You only get out of parenting what you put into it.
loading...
how about this for an idea if you want to have children you save up enough money to support yourself during the period of time you intend to have off to care for your newborn and the only thing thing the government should have to do is make sure you are able to reutrn to work if you choose.
loading...
Love it! Beautifully said Pearl!
loading...
Pearl – you have made a Pearl of a statement!
Hear, Hear!
loading...
Well said Pearl, If we are not financial enough to stay home with our kids, don’t have them, and if you are earning 150 a year, why the hell do you need our help??
Can someone answer that?
And how in hell do you have time to get on here and whinge.
Using the company computer, I suppose.
loading...
You know, I would prefer there was a scheme that continued to put Super into my scheme whilst on maternity leave – or looked at stay at home mums & paid something towards their long term Super. We are so caught up in the nappy & little kids stage – are we missing the bigger picture ?.
loading...
no you make the choice to have children if you think the state should be subsidising your children then the state should also have ownership over those children and have the right to send them to war or force them into an occupation of the states choice.
loading...
bertha again you come across as completely warped…
loading...
**To Sally
Warped….or tying to think outside the box we have all put this issue in?
**To Bertha
I LOVE the way you think, what an amazing idea….
Why not have a super style account called ‘family management’, employers pay into that, you access it when your family has children for the period of leave.
That way if you never have children, when you leave the workforce it can just roll into your super.
Of course, what I am saying is a very simplistic idea at this stage…I wonder what the mechanics behind doing something like that would be?
loading...
“Make no mistake, parental/maternity leave is not a health retreat. It is not a holiday or a sabbatical. Caring for a newborn is some of the most challenging work you will ever do in your life. An easy ride it is not.”
Sorry to disappoint the militant motherhood, but maternity leave was the most relaxed, chilled out time in my adult life. A year of amusing the bubby, long walks, lunches and coffees. Nothing like the stresses of work. So if Abbott wants to pay me what I would earn at my paid job for this,, my answer is:
HELL YEAH!!!!
loading...
did you give birth to a baby or a cabbage patch kid?
loading...
Hee hee hee! Bt the time I was gearing up for my 3rd, I thought of my maternity leave as a holiday! Yee ha! Big kids still at daycare a couple of days a week – small baby (they can’t do anything when they’re little!) – hanging out with friends and play groups – excercising – cooking. It was awesome!
loading...
perhaps you were in the wrong job? my job at the moment – I’d rather be looking after 11 newborns all at once!!
loading...
kateaswell – she was a cross between a cabbage patch kid and a fluffy kitten. so the birth was a bit of a surprise – perhaps i shouldn’t have married my first cousin, but that’s a topic for another day…
Katyberry – so glad you are also enjoying it!
TN – love my job (i’m a government lawyer) but it is hugely stressful and often all-consuming – so the year off was wonderful!
loading...
I am there with you Anon! I think that children would bring stress, but you are in charge of the stress.
NOt being manipulated by a organisation, board of directors, or a multinational who sees you as a number and a Return on Investment risk!
loading...
I really do not want to sound sarcastic…but Hello Glass Ceiling! This will definitely be a factor now at interview stage…High cost training, overseas opportunities…
Secondly.
I am a high income earner…I am a high income earner because of the choices and sacrifices I made in combination with the amazing opportunity that Australia is. I did not get a high income by stuffing around or being in a “Boys Club” so when I go on maternity leave (looking forward to my first baby:-) How is it fair that I am not paid as per the salary I am on and the taxes I have contributed while being there if I am on paid leave?
Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Chrystal
loading...
What about the other types of sacrifices?
I’ll just use my own situation as an example.
I had my first baby 8 years ago. I sacrificed my career to stay at home full time – it was a decision myself and my partner made that we thought was best for our family. My second child is now 4.
I have sacrificed my career (amongst a number of luxuries!) to stay home for the past 8 and a half years to look after my children. We are not eligible for any assitance from the government, yet we are from being well off.
While none of this applies to me anymore – being unemployed and not having any more children – what about others that will be in a similar situation (in that they wish to sacrifice their whole careers for years on end)? How is it fair that those who work for a number of years and pay their taxes (which is doesn’t really apply to this debate anyway given that it will be business that pays, not our income tax) are not entitled to diddly squat? Where’s the support for full time stay at home mother’s? Is this not as important as mother’s who have careers?
Good luck with your baby – it’s such an exciting time
loading...
“I did not get a high income by stuffing around”
So people on lower incomes only got there because they ‘stuffed around’? And high-income people only got there because of their own hard work & never slack off?
Classless society: yup, we have it.
And by the way – Abbott’s scheme doesn’t propose paying for the baby salary from personal income taxes, whether yours or anyone else’s.
loading...
Crystal…HELL YEAH..on your first comment
“Hello Glass Ceiling! This will definitely be a factor now at interview stage…High cost training, overseas opportunities…”
A definite disadvantage to women of child-bearing age…as if we don’t have enough discrimination in the workforce already!!
loading...
Let me clarify….
***My Comments on Paying Tax
I understand that this is a ‘big business funded’ scheme. However, my taxes, fund the organisation (The Federal Government) who will administrate the process of making the ‘big businesses’ to pay up.
So if I pay more to administrate the system, I want equal return. Please note, I said equal, not more, and not less.
***To Guest
Yes you did make sacrifices with regard to your career and other luxuries, again, with all respect, they were your choice. No one made you choose your direction, no one made me choose mine.
The reason working parents (not just women) should get parental leave, is that if you are already earning a salary, to leave work, and loose this or have a drop in salary, and as mentioned by Mia has a huge effect. We all structure our lives around that magic monthly income. That is why it needs to be means tested.
I also support the cap, I feel $150,000 is very generous.
***To Lulu
You are right, my words did not express corrently the intent of my opinion (of to have Mia’s writting ability!).
What I meant to convey is that, I am a little frustrated that ‘high income earners’ are always in the cross hairs. I earn my income becuase of the choices I made and the work I did to get there. If someome else wants to make the same or more money then me (which I can say is high, but not at the $150K mark!) then they can also make choices.
I love my job, I really do. But if I wanted to be whatever I wanted to be in the world, it would be a Zoo Keeper. However, that does not pay the $$$ that I want to secure the future of my fmaily. So I made the choice. after all $$$ wont by you health or happiness but it will buy you choices.
If that is classless – then call me classless!
And ladies, thanks for your thoughts
loading...
Does anyone else think this will encourage more mums to put babies in full time care at 6 months so they retuen to work to get the full time leave for baby two? Not good for babies at all.
loading...
it does keep the wheels of employment turning if you get your 6 months off and then have to go back to work. So yes, it may/would mean more child care potentially.
So, if that is the case, maybe we need a much better government funded policy that is child-centred.
My feeling is mostly that the Governing body of the people should do the paying. it’s kinda like privatising water and trams and things, it mostly does turn sour.
loading...
Yup, but NOT so I can plan leave for our next child. I’ll be going back to work so we can afford to save for a home, and afford to provide for our children!
I earn twice as much as my husband (he earns less than $36k/yr) and when we planned to have a baby and started saving we did it all thinking we would have one child. But we are having twins (completely spontaneous). We are very excited and feel blessed, but it blew the budget considerably. My husband’s family is overseas and mine is 4 hours away, so leaving the children with Nan and Pop while I go to work is not an option.
Anyway, we’re working it out and I’m sure we’ll be fine, but I’ve already cried about how much time I’m NOT going to get to spend with my twins because I’ll be going back to work.
loading...
This smells of typical Liperal Policy- Keep the middle class voters Happy, the one’s that tend to vote liberal.
As with all political moves it isn’t about what is needed. all those less poplular less vote making decisions that are way more important than filling purses of middle class women.
Has anyone noticed the economic crisis? do big business need another hit? what about all those non voting mentally ill patients? All those disabled young people in elderly nursing homes?
They are a minority so money doesn’t flow there way because they don’t count.
Lets sort other problems out in Australia before we greedily hold out our middle class fingers for more un required money so we can buy our 5 bedroom McMansions and still save for the private education?
This Policy pisses me off. Alot.
Not proud to be Australian at all when we who have all want even more.
loading...
I dare say, you might be right with the strategy.
I still *want* the 6 month leave, but there may be a rat in there!
loading...
When it comes to playing politics, if women and babies win, then so does the party in my opinion!
No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in so, yay for Abbott.
I did not work when baby was born. I have finished up my massage buisness first trimester and did temp wrk second trimester.
From whom and what would I get??
I say yes yes yes for Abbott proposal AND include a good wage for non-working mothers.
And, yes, I agree with Mia, not working is NOT for the mother, it is for the baby who needs it’s parents, especially Mother at home providing the care a human baby is certainly deserving of.
It is not a holiday, but it is certainly a job filled with hard work and love and I am bloody certain, if politicians understood one scrap of knowledge about humans, then would *get* that happy and loved children make *great* productive, inspired citizens who would boost the economy, yadda yadda…..
loading...
My biggest issue with anything the Labor govt proposes is that they always want to bloody means test it! I missed out on 2 of the stimulous packages from the last 13 months because the year before I happened to work an obscene amount of overtime/night shift and earn 130k – which destroyed my health. For the past 14 months I’ve been unemployed and struggling to feed my child. So if things are going to be means tested then it needs to be done in a more intelligent way.
loading...
Aaaargh! I can’t even form a coherent comment, the idea is so infuriating. Why on earth should businesses have to fund personal choices. Protection for women so that they can have time off and not lose their job for having a baby, yes. Businesses funding personal decisions? Absolutely not.
Government funding I can deal with (if it’s a reasonable amount). If that’s what society has prioritised then fine. But FFS, let’s get real here!
loading...
I think it comes back to the idea of money/business being there for our society, not the other way around. We all want our country to be prosperous, but why – just for the sake of it, or so that it can help progress our society and communities?
loading...
I’m against anyone having money thrown at them for having a child, just look at the mess created when the government introduced the baby bonus…I think $5000….too tempting for some teenagers.
We don’t need to entice people to have children, if they want them…then make sure you can afford them and plan ahead. The argument that we need more babies to sustain the elderly is a bit OTT, the amount of migrants to this country every year cancels that argument!
loading...
Are you saying that only those that can AFFORD children should have them?
Is that the same as healthcare and education?
ONLY THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD IT, CAN GET IT? Think about what you are saying. You are on a slippery elitist slope.
loading...
This comment is quite a commercial, business oriented idea. I am not a socialist, but I guess in response to this comment, I think society should support family.
loading...
Yes Yes Yes, If people want to have babies then by all means have them but don’t think the government owes you a baby!! well done
loading...
There are so many stereotypes in your comment I don’t know where to begin.
loading...
Elitist Moi…bit HARSH. BTW, don’t have private health insurance and sent kids (ones I could afford) to public primary and secondary school.
If you can’t AFFORD to have children, either save up a nest egg or DON’T HAVE THEM….as Pearl says “don’t think the government owes you a baby!!”
loading...
i would hate to think what would happen to this country if the coalation got their way , expecting big business to fund an entire persons wage for 26 weeks. alp’s is much more viable for the country and the economy in the long run….
ive had no income after each of my 3 kids and yes it was hard but we made do, especially when we got rid of all the stuff we didnt need…expensive internet, foxtel, 2 cars, etc etc….the funny thing is that it was the happiest we have ever been. now with both of us working we have all the luxuries back again and we never seem to have any money left over…..time to pare back again….
loading...
I totally agree… if we didnt have the huge brand new homes, the expensive internet, pay tv, latest cars etc and stopped trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’s'… then a lot of families could have children, have one parent stay home and still live quite comfortably. I have been a stay at home mum and a working mum and I must say that I think my boys benefit from me being at home. We may have one income but we have a house (not a huge brand new house but it is ours), decent cars, pay our bills etc. I think people need to stop living beyond their means and using that as an excuse to have to work.
loading...
Here’s a link to an interesting piece in The Punch today – http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-super-idea-for-supporting-new-parents-financially/#comment-94302 – it’s worth a read.
loading...
I think that this is, by far, the most appropriate course to take. Very similar to what I wrote earlier today in one of my comments down further.
loading...
I’m not exactly for it. Sounds expensive and the money is needed more in hospitals and mental health.
And what about mum’s who go back part time? then have another baby. only have a salary replaced then.
I don’t think it is rational spending at this point in time.
The Labour version. Had the support of business and was fair on all women. People earning 150000 a year can budget. You do have 9 months after getting pregnat to sort it out. I’m one of those women. That was my salary. I now earn 30000 a year and my husband 50000. Big drop. We just live in smaller house and within our means.
Big Business should not have to fund our choices. People will lose jobs over it to make up funds. Unwise and unfair.
loading...
I am all for maternity leave, as a mother with 1 and another due soon. However, I will NEVER vote for Abbott. He is a slimey snake.
loading...
OK, so I’m going to rave about Sweden here, and before anyone throws in comments about higher taxes and things, I am very well aware of the higher tax rate Swedes pay but this brings me to my point.
In Sweden, you get 16 MONTHS MATERNITY LEAVE PAID AT 100% OF YOUR INCOME. This is tax-funded certainly, but holy dooley you reckon anyone has second thoughts about being able to afford a baby or having enough time off to care for one? Even Dads get 90 days paternity leave!
I think the problem we have in this country is that tax hikes haven’t always meant that we get something better in return, so now people hear “federally funded” and lose their shorts.
And I’m sick to death of the argument of “I don’t have kids why should my taxes pay for people who want them”. My mum doesn’t drive, but she still pays for the roads others use. No complaints there.
I think the big problem with Abbott’s plan is that big businesses love an excuse to sack people and raise prices. If they are being asked to pay for a maternity scheme, my worry is the next step will be higher costs for us and more unemployed people. Saving money? Hmmm, possibly on paper.
I’m so glad this issue is being brought up by BOTH sides finally but I think there’s still alot of serious thinking to be done. And as Mia said, where do the “unemployed” mothers in this country come into it? Oh that’s right, sorry I forgot, a housewife isn’t really employed is she?
Boy have we got a very long way to go…
loading...
Totally agree.
And further to “If they are being asked to pay for a maternity scheme, my worry is the next step will be higher costs for us and more unemployed people”, I think it’s a hop, skip and a jump away from more unemployed WOMEN (not shouty, just emphasising, we need italics for comments!). As so many pointed out in the post about whether to tell a prospective employer about your prospective baby, there are many ways to discriminate against women of child-bearing age, some blatant and some clever.
Pandora, have a box…
loading...
Re Sweden, my best friend lives there, married to a Swede.
She has a 4 yo, an 18-month old and 2-month old twins (yeah, they have a healthy marriage…)
She’s a pretty awesome lawyer, fell preggo after about 18 months of paid work – her 1st out of uni – and took about a yr off to look after her princess. her husband took 3 months to bond with the bub.
fast track it 18 months ago, her 2nd princess came into this world and she took a mere 6-months off, by choice. went back to work part time and the husband took another full 3 months. she fell preggo with twin girls (too many princesses under the one roof!) while breastfeeding her 3-month old.
so she decided to return to work but as she was going to leave to have more babies, she CHOSE to be good to her employer and resigned.
she resigned because she thought it’d be a good opportunity to get her masters and other post grad studies she had planned on completing.
so she’s now at uni part time, doing some consultancy work from home – she is pretty awesome – and her husband is about to take his 3 months off and come visit aunty Caroline in Australia in Easter!
they pay a bomb in tax, but i look at their lifestyle and how their kids are well cared for, free education from age 1 right thru to secondary and of top quality.
loading...
I completely agree with you!!! While i’m not sure of the details i know that the German system is pretty well in the same sphere.
Although i was talking to my mum the other day and she seems to think it will put employers off women of childbearing age does any one think that is possible or just my mum being crazy???
loading...
Missamoo your mum is right, matters like this usually target women first because we are the heathens that dare get ourselves knocked up.
The German system is very good too, my family is from there and they had no problems whatsoever when they had their children. They got subsidised child care and I believe up to 8 months maternity leave? I do remember my uncle got 4 weeks paid paternity leave so he could spend time with his new little family.
loading...
Um do you actually believe that the Liberal’s maternity leave policy will actually eventuate in its current form. It is just a big fat hook to get women to vote for the Liberals. If the Liberal party are elected the policy will probably be watered down. Tony Abbott didn’t even consult some of his own party about the scheme. He told his disgruntled party members that “it is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission”! What a joke. What if your doctor said that to you after botching up your surgery.
Also to believe that after all these years of watching working women struggle with maternity leave that Tony Abbott finally comes to his senses after TALKING to his daughters. This guy is a schmoozer and a snake oils salesman. I don’t believe anything he says in a heartbeat. The same goes for his environment policy – which is a crock and will do nothing to cut carbon emissions but it sounds all fluffy & easy so people like it. Tony Abbott only says what people want to hear. Sometimes great leaders need to do what is right in terms of offering a policy that is financially sound (big business will not like the 1.7% levy & will probably pass costs onto consumers) and socially sound not what sounds nice and easy to do.
loading...
Well said!
loading...
I think it is fantastic that parental leave is being discussed by politicians, however, I think that the more pressing issue at hand is, as others have said, housing affordibility and the cost of living.
Housing in Australia is ridiculousy overpriced. Not only to buy, but to rent also. Many are struggling as it is now and in order to keep their homes, many women are forced to go back to work simply to keep a roof over their family’s head and food on the table.
If these issues are addressed as a priority, the fact that families would have more left over in their pockets at the end of the week, the more likely people would feel capable of affording to have children.
It is all well and good to have incentives for women to stay home for the first 6 months as they will be assisted financially in that time, but if things keep going the way they are in relation to housing and the cost of living, these children will be struggling once they reach adulthood even more than people are now. Is that what we really want for our children?
The thought that my children may not be able to buy their own homes is quite scary, so much so, that we have thought about buying investment properties so that our kids will have a home when they reach adulthood – and they are only 8 and 4 now!
Addressing this now would surely have a far reaching positive flow on effect for generations to come.
loading...
I agree with you Charlotte. I think this latest idea from Abbott is just another bandaid solution to the increasing problem of the rising cost of living which is consumer driven. There needs to be a shift in how we think – choices need to be made early on in a relationship. Handing out more money to try and fix the problem that we as a society has created is obviously not the answer. If you can’t afford to live on a reduced or single wage for a fairly short period of time then you really need to reassess your situation and make appropriate choices. I’ve always found it interesting that the sale of plasma TVs rose sharply with the introduction of the baby bonus. Also, women must now realise that the idea that you can have it all is a myth. Hopefully it’s not too late for us to make the changes we need to so that our children will have a better future.
loading...
Unfortunately the housing market is going to continue to rise. Usually I keep well away from giving general opinions on all things financial/real estate/etc however there is one thing that I am confident will continue to affect the housing market – overseas investors. Until recently there was a relatively decent cap on how much overseas buyers could spend on a single property. Since the cap has been lifted and there is literally no limit on it, there has been a massive influx of foreign buyers who can borrow money at a fraction of the interest rate that we can.
I am most certainly not against multi-culturalism. Not even remotely. But I am against a system whereby Australians (citizens and residents) are being pushed down, and maybe off, the property ladder by their own government.
loading...
Call me cynical, but I feel this is just vote buying by Tony Abbott. If they are voted into government, there will be the usual “we can’t afford it” after the business groups affected by the new tax to pay for it put pressure on his government to abandon the scheme. I think Tony Abbott’s scheme is flawed, but I’m happy that paid maternity leave is at least on the agenda of both major parties.
loading...
I applaud any changes that make it less of a all or nothing choice whether to have kids or not.
However, I feel that it is the return to work that needs support too. I am currently trying to work out kinder places for my son next year and the system is overloaded meaning I may not be able to return to work – he may need to attend on days when I am due to work. His daycare centre run a program but to get extra kinder placement you need to attend for a full day. My husband’s reply is that I’ll just have to resign from work which is a very depressing thought as I really enjoy my job… What do I do when they are both in school and I don’t have a job?
loading...
LJ, I wouldn’t look at your husband’s response as a negative thing but as a positive. So many husbands would just tell their wives they have to get back to work and that’s that.
I used to work for a solicitor who, for want of a better term, ‘put her life on hold’ to raise her three boys (one set of twins) while her husband worked. She went back to work when the youngest started school and found a sympathetic employer who allowed her to work school hours and she is now a partner in that firm. For noting: this was about 15 years ago.
loading...
So many women have gien up work for this reason…and have discovered that they wouldnt have it any other way. Believe me its easier to work when they are babies. Once they’re at school they will complain if you cant attend something or they have to be taken by another family or miss out on something because you are at work
loading...
To everyone who says having a child is not a lifestyle choice tell me your take on this senario.
A gay couple decide that want a child, they have to go through very expensive means for this to happen, donor egss etc etc.Should they be allowed to claim the medical expenses through medicare? Should they be entitled to the paid parental leave? Isn’t them wanting to have a child a “lifestyle” choice??
I would be interested how many of you who say having a child isn’t a lifestyle choice apply the same reasoning to a gay couple. (and by the way this is NOT an attack on gay couples. I think they should be able to marry, have kids and have all the same benefits as any other couple)
loading...
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to claim their medical expenses through Medicare? Why shouldn’t they be entitled to paid parental leave?
Lifestyle is a term to describe the way a person lives and is based on social relations (going out with friends vs not going out with friends), consumption (buying a plasma tv vs not buying it), entertainment (going to the movies vs not going to the movies – it’s dang expensive!), and dress (buying the $1000 designer shoes vs not buying them).
It’s not as if I can go to the supermarket this afternoon, after discussing with my husband that we want another child, and just pick up a baby in the dairy section or from the deli.
loading...
While I think they should be entitled to support to parent their child I dont think they should be able to claim medical expenses through medicare for its conception. There is a biological reason they cant have children naturally. That is not the tax payers responsibility. Medicare is stretched enough as it is with people who are alive now. They should be the priority.
loading...
Lu – just to clarify, you think people who require medical assistance with conception should NOT be able to access any medicare rebates for their treatment? I need to make sure I understand your point of view to ensure my reply is appropriate….
loading...
Lu,
Would that agument that there is a biological reason why they can’t have children then also apply to those who have to resort to IVF? Obviosly there is a biological reason that they cant have children either. Or are you saying because they are gay they have less of a right to have a child?
loading...
I absoloutely think gay couples should be reimbursed for their medical expenses, and should also be paid parental leave! I don’t want to get in to Medicare debate, but I don’t think we can start saying that person shouldn’t be able to claim Medicare because they’re fat, or that person can’t claim because they smoke. I wouldn’t want to live in that sort of society.
loading...
I was only referring to the question above – a gay couple. Big difference between biological reasons and medical reasons. Medicare is a limited pool of money. If you have a medical reason – go for it. If your lifestyle means it could never happen naturally, well I think the limited pool of money has better uses and it should be something the user pays for themselves.
So many negative Nellies looking to nitpick.
loading...
I just think that the modern language use of having children as a *lifestyle* choice shows how post-post-modern all this talk is.
We are not consumers for bleedings sake but biologically driven humans with feelings and strong needs.
loading...
to amanda i don’t think anyone who nature has not allowed to have children should be subsidised by medicare to have kids that were obviously not meant to be whether they be gay or straight, what a flagrant waste of tax payer dollars how about the money goes to people who contribute to society not to children of unfortunate couples who more often than not are riddled by complications because nature never intended them to be born in the first place
loading...
bertha, forgive me darling but you are displaying some signs of being “riddled with complications”…I would finish the quote but that might be taking it a bit far don’t you?
loading...
Bertha, I take issue with your comment that my son is “riddled with problems because nature never intended for him to be born in the first place”. How dare you. Everyone else, please excuse me for going off topic but I couldn’t let this comment pass.
loading...
I totally agree!!!
one thing that interest me in this whole debate is the way women of generations who have long finished their families are often against it simply because they had to do without. I have heard this so many times and when i posted on facebook the other day that I think Abbott’s scheme is better I had lots more of the same from friends my mum’s age.
i don’t get it. I didn’t get paid maternity leave, or a baby bonus for the first one, and i’m not planning on having more kids. but this is not about me it is about our society as a whole!! and that makes it so much more exciting and important!!!
an interesting point on the differential payment – my tutor at uni Eva Cox always used to point out that in euro countries where the dole is paid at the level you got while you were working (it is like insurance, rather than ‘welfare’) people in those countries do not have a negative attitude towards welfare payments the way we do. Why shouldn’t the state be for the rich as well as the poor? We have a situation here where most of the welfare money goes to a small group of very disadvantaged people who would often, frankly, be better off with more money being spent on them to manage addictions, improve self-esteem & get them into the workforce. . sorry total other debate entirely!
loading...
I for one am sick of a society that so indulgently pamapers and dotes over parents as if they are some kind of superhumans.We are all so wonderful because we have some children and people without are second class citizens. for instance if someone has a sick child at home there is seldom dissaproval at the idea of leaving work early or staying home to care for child (which is fair enough when the child can’t care for itself) however if one were to stay home for a sick pet or animal it would be seen as laziness or even eccentric behaviour. Our society needs to realize we already have enough children who are going to continue the same destructive habits of previous generations perhaps with even higher expectations of the world. Children should not be considered a badge of honour but more a mark of ignorance towards the issues that face the planet. When i read the comments here i see alot of self centered backslapping about how great of a job we’ve done or how smart we think we are to teach our children this or that, in a world where children are born and one year later are being cared for by paid strangers it makes me think that children are simply the next must have item and alot of the time it is more about the parent feeling good about themselves than the child being loved and cared for.I think it is so easy to care about something that we feel a sense of ownership over or to feel responsibility to someone directly related to us but how many of us would concentrate so much money and effort into something that would help strangers or the environment. The world has no shortage of humans what we do have a shortage of is time and viable habitats to sustain the beautiful miriad of creatures and plants that god has created it is not fair for us who are aware of this to steal this from all of the mothers out there in the wild having their homes destroyed their and their childrens lives taken so that we can have a play friend for our child or so that we can have the big traditional family we have always wanted
loading...
Bertha, I’m confused – are you against mothers, parents, children, or just people in general. You said Humans destroy the environment – but I think you’re forgetting that there are a lot of people who care about the environment also. Think back to the firefighter who gave the Koala a drink of his water, in the Black Saturday fires – he’s an example of someone who cares about the environment & animals. He is an example of a child who did not grow up to “continue the same destructive habits of previous generations.” And, this is just one example of a person who risked his life to save not only other people’s lives, but the lives of animals caught up in the fires as well.
You mention “in a world where children are born and one year later are being cared for by paid strangers”, this is the problem we’re talking about! I won’t go in to parental choices such as Stay at Home parents, working parents, part time workers etc:, however, if a parent is given the opportunity to stay home for the first 6 months of a child’s life – I can only see this as a positive step. And that extra 6 months of full time pay, can also help the parents plan & save, so one of the parents might be able to stay home longer with the child – maybe 2 or 3 years if they’re lucky. I can only see this as a positive thing for the children involved, and for society as a whole.
I hope you can try to be a little less negative, and try to see some of the positives in others.
My daughter is 10 years old, and each year for xmas & birthday – she asks for money to be donated to the Lost Dogs Home or RSPCA, instead of lots of presents. She also collects old blankets/towels and donates them to animal welfare organisations. Somehow, she even managed to convince her father to give money to the Lost Dogs Home each month! (I’m quite amazed by this one, as I’d tried to convince him to donate money for years, with no luck!).
I hope you can try to see the positive aspects of parenting (and I’m certainly not saying that every parent is a good parent), and not be so bitter towards people who have children.
And just for the record, I have also taken many days off (without pay) to care for my pets!
loading...
” Children should not be considered a badge of honour but more a mark of ignorance towards the issues that face the planet” what a negative and often untrue view. We do need some level of reproduction in every country and it can’t all come from immigration.
How is having one or two children destroying the world so “we can have the big traditional family we have always wanted”? I would hardly call a family of 3 or 4 a big family.
loading...
Personally I think the first 6 months means nothing. Kids will notice their parents arent around when they are older. When they’re a baby it doesnt matter that much where mum is, as long as someone is caring for them.
loading...
What an angry, angry post. As a parent, I don’t relate to any of the feelings you describe.
I hope you can let go of some of that animosity soon. A rather unhelpful emotion if you really want the world to be a great place to live.
loading...
I don’t have children and discrimination is rife in every workplace I have been in the last 5 years because I am of a child bearing age/ ages? People telling me I will need to do it soon, passed over for promotions with no good reason for a man, and left to pick up the slack of co-workers who have sick children or lack of daycare etc. I have taken days off when my pets were sick to care for them and was told to leave them at the vet! you wouldnt dare say that to someone with a child (I know a person vs an animal but they are my children of choice!)
I am all for a paid maternity leave scheme if it were tax payer funded as I work for a big company I would hate to be discriminated against further for something that I may never use. Many people have made it by before without it and I suspect it will just encourage people to have more and more children they cannot possibly afford.
loading...
Whoa nellie! Bertha what a negative view you have. I think maybe you should stop looking at children as if they are some kind of invading force out to destroy the world. I for one think that the joy children bring into peoples lives (clearly not yours though) is enough. We would all be a lot more miserable as a society if there were no children amongst us.
loading...
Talk about negative!
loading...
I have a few points to raise in response to all of your replies these will be in order of your responses. Firstly in light of the tens of thousands of children dying of malnutrition each day, and considering the number of species going extinct as a result of our excessive reproduction, do you think it would be a good idea to create another of yourself? this idea that “adults who were children care about our environment” is an oxymoron it is like saying “kids are our hope for the future the more kids we have the more chance one of them will figure out how to save the world” when you think about it in terms of human population being the main reason for ecological destruction it doesn’t make sense.
Secondly people who can’t afford to raise their children without baby bonuses or paid parental leave shouldn’t be having them and the same goes for people who don’t have the time to raise their own kids. It seems to me that these people are having children due to a sense of pressure from society to keep up with jones’ so to speak or for one of many other unjustafiable reasons in light of the worlds situation.
Thirdly despite the good things people may choose to do all of us are still causing the problems of our world that we are so eager for our children to be sheltered from, to have more children to do more good things for the world is redundant as i have already said above.
My fourth point is in response to the idea that “We do need some level of reproduction in every country and it can’t all come from immigration.” this to me simply sniffs of racism and xenophobia but what you are saying is instead of killing the people from other countries we don’t like we must out breed them.
fifth yes i am angry, angry that so many people still can’t accept that over population by humans is the problem.
sixth the joy that children bring into peoples lives sounds pretty selfish to me if you are seeking joy in your life there are easier ways to achieve this without having children for example hepling the environment or the homeless or taking up a hobby rather than supporting the social conditioning that makes you believe you should have children to fill the joyless void in your life.
Finally if you want to talk about negative lets talk about the idea of raising children into a world thats in a state of ecological collapse, children who are going to accelerate this collapse it’s like renting rooms in a burning building renting them to our children no less.
thanks for your time
loading...
I’m really pleased that government and opposition are talking about maternity leave. In my opinion parenting is generally undervalued by the workforce and society has a long way to go. What about housing affordability? Unfortunately the property market in Australia is overpriced and most parents have to return to work in order to afford to pay the mortgage.
Ideally I would like to stay at home with my child until she is ready to go to school. Hopefully I will be able to find a job share position in a family friendly environment. I’ll be 47 by then so I hope I wont be too old???
loading...
wow Bertha you scare me – no parent thinks anyone is a second class citizen for not having children. I think our children are the hope for the future and I feel sad that you can not feel this too. What I really don’t understand is that you seem to have more compassion for animals than humans.
loading...
“this to me simply sniffs of racism and xenophobia but what you are saying is instead of killing the people from other countries we don’t like we must out breed them.”
If you get that from my comment that not all population growth can come from immigration then you are even more foolish than i originally thought. For purely practical reasons not all population growth can come from immigration. I said nothing at all about being against immigration. Where do you get the idea that i think we should “kill or breed out” other races?
loading...
geez bertha I hope you’re vegan
loading...
Bertha, I hope you feel better about the world soon.
Lu, the first 6 months, actually 2 years of life develop and synthesise the old brain/reptilian (brain stem) and frontal cortex brain development. This is actually quite important and i would disagree that the first 6 months mean nothing. These are the brain patterns and path-ways that are used in instinct and relating and I believe heavily influence later patterning and behaviour.
loading...
Caroline I’m sure you are probably right with your facts. I was merely referring to the 6 months in terms of a childs happiness and awareness. A mother would be better off working hard while her baby is young so she doesnt have to when its olders. I’ve never heard of a 6 month old baby begging their mum not to go back to work. But I sure do know some 6 year olds who have.
loading...
Wow Bertha, I once had a sick pet who needed care while I was at work. I took it to the vet who was happy to board it for the day. Unfortunately, organising care for a sick child is not as simple. That would be because the child is a PERSON.
To compare the joy that raising a child brings to giving money to helping a cause is like comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps you should print out your comment so that one day if you have children you can re-read it and see if you still feel the same way.
loading...
to verona your post just shows us the kind of attitude that got us here in the first place the attitude that because
we are human we are so much more important than animals it’s okay for you to leave your pet at the vet in some
strange surroundings with strange people but if your child was in the same situation say in hospital for instance
you would be at it’s side for as long as the hospital would allow you to be why then do you not extend the same
compassion to your pet? i dare say it’s because you value an animal’s life far less than a human’s life. Secondly i
wasn’t simply talking of donating money to a particular cause i was speaking of your time and your money imagine if
all the time you have spent on your child had been spent on rehabilitating a local creek for example not only would
you have experienced many of the same kind of trials, sucesses, and tests of parenthood but you would have directly
contributed to the lives of more than just one animal the animal being human in your case you would have contributed
to thousands of lives in a way that is completely selfless.
to meljb if you could explain to me one why we even need population growth so badly? i’m pretty sure people wont stop
breeding and also the last time i checked our healthcare system was overrun our roads are clogged with traffic house prices are skyrocketing school class sizes are getting bigger and bigger and 70 species of animals die each day all this seems to suggest if anything we need the opposite of population growth all i’m saying is we need to consider what consequences having children may have on our planet and the
planet these children will have to live in and two explain to me these practical reasons why population growth can’t
come from immigration? i’m sure there are millions of people who would give anything to live in a country like our
own
to ahhhh, yes actually i am vegan because i don’t believe any animal should have to suffer so that one very selfish
animal can benefit and because one third of carbon production comes from the meat industry
and to claystep i do have more compassion for animals than humans any species that treats another species the way
we treat animals doesn’t deserve compassion they deserve a wake up call, when i see humans suffering the same injustices that animals do mabye
i will reconsider.it’s all too easy to care for something close to you try caring for something that you can’t ever
call your own.
loading...
when you ‘see humans suffering the same injustices that animals do’ are you kidding???? open your eyes and take a look at the human rights abuses happening all over the world….
loading...
I’m sorry Bertha but you seem to be of a school of thought that the planet would just be so much lovelier without humans. I’m all for being responsible and caring for the environment and I try and do my bit for animals and people in need but I refuse to believe that I, or any other person, doesn’t have as much right to be here than animals and plants. After all we all evolved right alongside each other to get us to this point. That was nature in action not some evil power out to destroy the animal kingdom.
As a community I think we can do much more for our planet than we do now but to try and suggest that as you don’t have children you are the only enlightened one and those who have children are too selfish to care about anything other than their own self gratification is quite offensive.
loading...
i never suggested that the planet would be better without people i just think it would be better with less people. i never suggested that we don’t have a right to be here but i don’t think we have a right to destroy the environment so that we can all live in air conditioning stuff our faces with the flesh of the creatures we evolved with in front of our plasma screens before we drive to work in cars powered by fossil fuels, espeacially if there are viable alternatives to this lifestyle that haven’t been taken up simply because they don’t seem the social norm and because they are expensive because no one has taken them up. i don’t recall anything about prehistoric humans arriving on the scene with coal burning power plants and automobiles.When we first evolved no we weren’t an evil power out to destroy the animal kingdom we lived sustainably because we couldn’t produce enough food to do otherwise which meant our population stayed at a sustainable level but eventually modern culture came along and destroyed all but the last shreds of these cultures and it was then that we turned out to be not as good as you think we are.If anyone has a right to be here it is those cultures that can support themselves without destryoing the environment around them cultures like this don’t over populate because what would be the point of having a child you can’t feed? that would be suicide which is exactly what we are doing by continuing to have children in the same way we have done for the past 100 years. if you can explain to me why you had children when you know the planet needs our help i can garantee that you wont come up with a valid reason. anyone who accepts that the planet is ion trouble shouldn’t be having children if we could lower the population to a susutainable level and keep it there we could keep burning coal and eating meat and driving cars as much as we liked and we would all enjoy a better standard of living, this to me seems better than selifishly breeding away for our own misguided reasons and then becoming extinct because of it or returning to live in caves, having an average life span of about 30 years and having to carry out back breaking work just so that we can keep food in our mouths.
loading...
your vitriolic rantings through out this page now make sense…you weren’t able to take the day off work to care for your sick pet!
Now that you have read it back to yourself, it is pretty funny-you have to admit. Sorry to stereotype, but I guess you have to fight fire with fire, you sound like one of those people who has 9 cats and no friends. If you don’t like people then stop engaging with us. Talk to the animals instead!
YOUR QUOTE “I think it is so easy to care about something that we feel a sense of ownership over or to feel responsibility to someone directly related to us but how many of us would concentrate so much money and effort into something that would help strangers”
Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself? Asking the community to SUPPORT PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (particularly those members who don’t have children or don’t want them) is asking for “effort into something that would help strangers.”
You are more of a socialist than you realized! Good for you!
loading...
International Women’s Day is celebrated in most countries around the World, sadly not in Australia.On Monday my 5-year-old took 12 roses to his teacher and the girls in his class in school and wished them “Happy Women’s Day!” It’s very important for me, that my boy grows up to love and respect women.
Regarding paid maternity leave:
Thank you for the great proposal Mr Abbot, with 6 months paid maternity leave hopefully no families have to hand their helpless,precious innocent babies to complete strangers in childcare centres.I come from a much poorer country than Australia, where mothers get 2 years (used to be 3 until recently) paid maternity leave. We can all live on much less, just need to prioritize.
loading...
I like the idea of having 6 months PML but how long is that going to take to pass through. KRudd’s scheme is set for Jan 2011 so when would Abbott’s come in? We are busy deciding when to have #2 and this is a deciding factor. When Mr Abbot hasn’t checked with his own party, can we really count on this as anything more than a vote-grabber?
loading...
the federal election will be this year, (probably October) well in time for Abbott to implement his policy before or when Rudd’s is due, if elected
loading...
I’m thinking exactly the same…! I’m hanging to have #2.
loading...
If you are using paid maternity leave as a deciding factor as to whether or not you have another child, you will be having a child for completely the wrong reasons…
loading...
I said a deciding factor not the deciding factor. As terrible as that may seem, I already have one child and have not wanted to have another because we were unsure if we could afford to. I would dearly love another child but as I work in an industry that is severely undervalue and underpaid and I have an ovulating problem that may require treatment, I have held off. You do not have all the information so please don’t make presumptions about me. I had to save and scrimp to have my first baby and would not hesitate to do so again if possible.
loading...
What I want to know is why we have to encourage parents back into the workforce… with society the way it is, kids knifing others, bullying rife, drug and alcohol abuse perhaps we should encourage mums or dads to stay at home and keep an eye on their kids… where is the encouragement to be a stay at home parent and the teaching of a child that their welfare and wellbeing was more important than the bottom dollar?
loading...
Sally I agree with you. Though I do understand the economy needs women in the workforce, especially skilled and educated women. The contradiction with this is these are also the women who are needed to be spending time raising their children rather than relying on low paid minimally trained childcare workers to do so. We dont have a culture that values children. We do have a culture that values money.
loading...
Because of the aging population – in the near future for the first time in Australian history there will be more people not working than working. Superannuation, raising the retirement age and encouraging more people back to work and to have more children is the governments way of solving the problem. Otherwise there won’t be enough tax money to support the population.
loading...
I think women who are not employed when they have a baby already get some cash from the government – family tax benefits and the like. I would suggest that for these folks, the baby bonus should stay in effect and set at something like $5k, linked to inflation.
I applaud the Coalition’s policy on this and am so happy this is back on the table. I believe this is what Howard was planning to do if he was re-elected. This and increase the pension.
All Abbott has to do now to get my vote is swear on the Holy Bible that he will not ressurect the draconian work choices scheme, including getting rid of penalty rates on the weekends. That to me is a big problem.
C’mon Tony, I’m almost there on voting for you. On more step and you;ve got me!
loading...
Angie, I don’t understand why you believe non working mother’s should only be entitled to $5000. This would mean that with Abbot’s scheme a high income earner could recieve 75k for 6 months maternity leave but I as a non worker would only get 5k. Where is the equality in that? I also have sacrificed things to stay at home with my children- we chose to buy a small house in an outer suburb so that we could live off one wage. Why do people who have made certain choices in their life- including having a huge mortgage to live in the fancy house continue to claim things are so hard for them. How about people start taking responsiblity of the choices they have made. Why is the value of a stay at home mum capped at 5k but a working mother could get so much more for the same period and same type of work. I believe in Maternity leave- but it should be the same for all! I find it very offensive that stay at home mum’s are continually lumped in with “those welfare recepients”. We consciously choose to have one car, smaller mortgage, no foxtel etc etc so I can stay at home. And trust me, my husband doesn’t even earn the minimum wage and we afford to do it!
loading...
Abbott, you’ve got my vote.
loading...
I’m not about to have kids any time soon but I’m excited to see the issue of parental leave back on the table. And while I certainly support some form of parental leave, I’m with Tory on this one. Parental leave is for PARENTS – how can one parent be worth more than another just because they have a better-paid job?
I completely accept that employees are paid at different levels in proportion to their skills in a free market – no problem there – but parental leave should not exist to fund high-income lifestyles. As many have pointed out, having a child is not a “lifestyle choice”, whereas taking on a high-paid, high-pressure job is. They’re different things, and therefore the same rules shouldn’t apply.
I’m also very cynical about Tony doing a complete 180 on this issue, announcing the policy on International Womens Day, and then confirming that he has not yet consulted “big business” or several other members of his party. In my opinion, it’s just a desperate grab for the female vote.
If he’s even half serious, he’ll vote K-Rudd’s policy in and then continue to campaign for his.
loading...
I’m with you Rochelle. The better the deal for parents, the better the policy is for everyone as far as I’m concerned but the little voice inside of me (and the big one outside too) is very cynical. I just can’t accept that Tony all of a sudden “gets” the whole parental leave thing (let along the “woman” thing – remember, this is the guy who thought only a few months ago that maybe we should go back to a fault based divorce system – great, let’s regress with a time warp policy that made getting a divorce about as demoralising as bringing an action for rape) and I’m really worried this is more about derailing the government’s policy so we end up with nothing (well, a promise of something great (from the opposition) that is so light on the details that it may as well be nothing) rather than best practice parental leave. And you’re spot on, if he is half serious, he will allow K-Rudd’s policy through the Senate and then continue to develop his “fabulous” policy!
loading...
I disagree … I think it SHOULD be paid at each individuals full salary. The cost of living in Sydney is vastly different to, say, the cost of living in Tassie or South Australia. Generally speaking, salaries from State to State are in line with that State’s cost of living. For example, if I was to undertake the same job in Sydney as I currently do in Adelaide, I would be remunerated at a much higher level, however, the cost of living in Sydney is much higher than in Adelaide. As such, I think the only fair system is the one proposed to Abbott – to be paid at each individuals full salary. If you just give everyone the base wage it disadvantages certain people based on which State they live in. No system is ever going to be 100% fair to everyone or 100% perfect, but it’s great to see Abbott do a complete 180 on this one!
loading...
Jane, that’s exactly why I think the government is looking at the whole situation arse about.
I posted below about how housing affordibility should be addressed – actually the whole cost of living in general (food, utilities, petrol etc) should be – which will benefit EVERYONE (not yelling just emphasising) in society (not just parents), thereby leaving people with more money in their pockets each week to enable them to be able to afford to have a child with minimal assistance from the government.
loading...
I was so worried this would be an “employer directly pays to the employee” scheme which would have seen women missing out on jobs a hell according to their child bearing status.
loading...
Should have been *hell of a lot* – won’t let me edit
loading...
I think having 6 months paid maternity leave is a wonderful thing, but I don’t believe it’s up to businesses to fund this scheme. Also, I am very interested to see how women who are unemployed would be covered under that policy – I have a feeling they wont be. The whole purpose of a paid maternity scheme from a government perspective should be about ensuring families have enough funds to assist with caring for baby and ease pressure of returning to one income. Whereas business are more interested in ensuring a return on investment on the women they employ, particularly in industries that are experiencing the skills shortage. Therefore why should they pay for all women in Australia? Most organizations have a wage bill of close to 50%. Incurring addition payments, even one as low as just over 1% isn’t sustainable. And to be honest, I don’t believe it’s fair. Therefore it should be the governments responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment of it’s people. Me personally, I would prefer getting minimum wage for 18 weeks, than 6 months at my old rate (which was waaaay above $544!)
loading...
Lets just remember that this is all political heresay – we still dont have paid maternity leave in 2010 and what pollies often promise is just a guise to win votes – forgive my cynicism.
Why does it have to be Maternity Leave, cant it be Parental Leave, where Dads get a percentage of time off to help Mum too?
I dont have children, but fortunately I am in a workforce that is 87% female, so I have paid maternity leave, but I do recognise that not everyone is in this boat.
However, I do also work with a high percentage of women who are bitter and twisted because they dont have children and they end up doing twice the work load because a parent is off sick caring for their child – they’re just jealous, I say!
loading...
And Amzz, the women who are bitter and twisted because they are having to carry the workload for those who are away caring for a sick child don’t factor in that these children WE are caring for and raising will be caring for THEM in the future when they are old or sick themselves – we are caring for and raising the doctors, and nurses and carers of the future!!!!!
loading...
as well as the people who will help to extinguish life as we know it on this planet
loading...
Because you, Bertha, have no contribution to that? Yes, that’s right it’s the kids fault, not the 500 or so generations that went before them???
loading...
I have a 2 1/2 year old who is looked after by family while I work. When I have had to leave early or not come in because she has not been well no one else in my office does my work and it’s just accepted and taken as a sick day. It’s the same as when those bitter and twisted women take extended holidays or are sick themselves or if their pets are sick/injured.
loading...
in response to Z i never suggested that i didn’t contribute to that did i? At least i can see that more people like me are the problem right now and that theres nothing we can do about what the previous 500 generations did now is there? other than not going into a blind rage when anyone questions the institution of parenthood and seeing that the one simple thing we can do now to help the planet is refrain from having more children in a country with one of the biggest carbon footprints per person
loading...
or maybe, just maybe we might be raising the next generation to be the first to actually give a shit about the planet, and they might be the ones to save us all. the children you are talking about have inherited our mess, and our parents mess and it goes on. Besides, i don’t think anybody is arguing about whether more people are good from an ecological point of view because clearly, we are not. but this post is about paid parental leave, not climate change.
loading...
well Z why do you contradict yourself when you say you realise that people are the problem and then you say our children might be the ones to save the planet the point is we can save the planet by not having any instead of blindly putting our foot on the accelerator and hoping for the best
loading...
There are 3 main reasons that government or opposition parties promise to give money to individuals.
Because of a humanitarian imperative to stop people living in poverty,to get votes, or to encourage/discourage certain behavioural and social trends.
Paid parental leave touches on all 3. Both parties know that a wealthy country like Australia has an obligation to ensure that all families have the basic necessities of life. The poorest families already receive government assistance. They would probably not benefit greatly from either scheme.
Both parties have the data about future workforce participation rates and know that more will need to be done to keep women in the workforce, especially skilled, educated women who pay a large amount of tax. A highly paid woman will contribute much more to the economy over her working life than she takes out. Paid parental leave is more likely to encourage women to go back to work than a baby bonus or a family tax break.
I believe that the difference between the 2 schemes is based on different party ideologies and the desire to attract votes from particular demographic segments.
The Liberal party has always created opportunities to look after the well off; generous subsidies for private schools, private health insurance incentives, family tax benefits for the spouses of high earners. The Labor party has maintained many of these benefits for high income earners.
Which brings us to reason number 3. Votes.
loading...
This is an interesting comment – why else would a government do almost all of the things they do except for votes? As in “outward signs that they are representing the wishes of the electorate” and the electorate is rewarding them with, you guessed it, votes.
loading...
Such a massive issue & whatever the result not everyone is going to be satisfied, but I think instead of critisising the schemes and thinking it has to be one or the other we should look at what would be a more appropriate solution. A solution that would also encourage women back into the workforce.
Perhaps a 6 month scheme that the goverment subsidises up to minimum wage (pro-rata) and the balance paid by the employer, who could receive a tax rebate/subsidy for the amount paid.
I think also there should be some onus on the parent taking paid leave to return to work after an agreed period (whether it be the period of paid leave or that together with an additional period of unpaid leave) to make sure the employer also gets something back.
Then perhaps childcare fees could be made tax deductible or exempt from fringe benefits tax to make it more appealing/affordable for women to return to the workforce.
And for those not in the paid workforce having babies, keep the baby bonus scheme.
It may also be worth noting that taxpayers already contribute to paid maternity leave provided by government departments…
loading...