Good one: the Productivity Commission proposes a feminist gain!
Posted
Updated
For many parents, the commission's proposal would make spending six months with the baby much more possible. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)
The Women's Electoral Lobby welcomes the Productivity Commission's Interim Report on paid parental leave as a very good starting point for the recognition of the contributions made by both mothers and fathers in paid work.
The proposal is for 18 weeks publicly funded leave, paid at the minimum wage rate, plus two weeks for partners on a take it or lose it basis. Although not 26 weeks, the report points out with recreation leave, it makes six months with the baby much more possible.
It doesn't replace income for the many women who earn more than the minimum wage, and more than replaces it for most of those who earn less. However, a higher proportion of these already have been able to negotiate some paid leave, so will presumably be able to add this on top and maybe for more weeks, at little or no net cost to their employers. Others will have a strong case for negotiating the top up in comparison with their peers. This model takes nothing from those not in paid work, and a little from some who had both paid maternity and the baby bonus and who can't hang onto the extra leave payment.
The real strength of this proposal is its financial formal recognition of the intersection of the public and private spheres by making caring for babies a workplace issue. This type of change opens up many new areas for discussion of the appropriate levels of time and resources spent in our various roles. Finally, the dominance of workplaces and identities can be challenged and tempered with a more human/social interactions.
The commission has clearly made the point that there is a clear relationship between paid work and care responsibilities. For an economics driven institution this is a rare recognition that it is OK for paid workers to mix paid work and care. The report states this very clearly:
'Normalcy' of parental leave and maximising retention
The more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements ... [by] signalling that looking after children while still being employed is just a normal part of working life. (my emphasis)
Until now, Australia has dismally failed to include paid parental leave on its policy agenda. Family payments, often quite generous ones, were likely to be targeted at women with no extra income or discouraged second income earners by the high means tests. This payment, if it survives the consultation and government decision making process, would be the first formal recognition of paid work and nurturing children. It will clearly benefit low paid workers, often part time or regular casuals, who had the most difficulty in bargaining for any paid leave. These include most of the 16 per cent who now return to work within the first three months. Of course, there are gaps but it is a huge first step to get it.
Supporters need to display support, and in unity, to ensure the recommendations stay in the final report and the government will not turn it into another welfare payment like the badly designed Howard Baby Bonus or the earlier Keating version. So far, all the Government says is 'it's time to bite the bullet'.
Eva Cox is a feminist academic and national chair of the Women's Electoral Lobby Australia.
Search for news
Comments (92)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
watcha:
30 Sep 2008 9:23:14am
The government can support this discriminatory (against men who have babies as well) piece of hogwash but can't find the heart to help pensioners.
My vote is heading toward independants very quickly.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
derr. how so:
30 Sep 2008 9:37:43am
How is there discrimination against men? If you have read the paper it actually is for eligible parents, so either one or the other. So men can be entitled to it, just not both.
My suggestion would be that you actually read the 'hogwash' and then pass comment, it is pretty clear you havent.
And just for your knowledge around a 3rd of women already have access to paid maternity leave through enterprise bargaining and some men dont. I dont see you having a go at the corporate fat cats. At least this is slightly more equitable for men and women across the aboard.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bobbyg:
30 Sep 2008 9:48:35am
Paid Parental leave is a good step forward.
BUT after watching Four Corners last night about the Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia we have nothing to complain about!
I am a male!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
watcha:
30 Sep 2008 10:01:34am
Oh, I apologise, I read that men could access a maximum of 2 weeks leave under this scheme.
How about taking it back to the drawing board and making it 'slightly more equitable for men' before putting it out for comment.
As a voter I have just about had enough of the 'working families" mantra spouted by politicians, especially while pensioners are doing it tough.
ravensclaw has some good points as well.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
30 Sep 2008 10:32:36am
I, like, TOTALLY agree! Men should have the same rights as women! They should receive the 18 weeks!
And of course, they *must* breastfeed the babies, after giving birth to them...
This whole stuff about male and female being interchangeable is stupid. There are obvious physical differences and significant mental differences between men and women. They are not the same. One shall not be *valued* less than the other, but you have to cater for the differences. Noticed that even the uber-feminist amazons avoid fighting against the discrimintaion between male and female toilets?
There's an inherently closer and more intimate link between baby and mother than between baby and father; breastfeeding being the most obvious. If the legistlation therefore favours women, it's quite understandable. Yes, you should have a clause for the special case when the duty of care is on the father, but that's an exception rather than the norm.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
30 Sep 2008 10:45:38am
With an attitude like that Kocsonya you are promoting the position that mothers should stay at home while the father works, this also leads to the gap in pay between male and female employees (as it is assumed that female employees will quit when they have children).
Equal rights means exactly that, you can't have it both ways.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
30 Sep 2008 11:47:53am
How can you have equal rights when men can not have babies and can not breastfeed them?
I'd like to point out that the above restriction is *not* due to oppression of either sex. It is not a communist plot. It is called biology.
I do not propose that women must stay home with the kids. But I propose that women breastfeed their babies, because of the obvious (at least to me) reason of men not having breasts. Now if you accept that breastfeeding is good for the baby, then you shall accept the conclusion that it's better the mother to be around the baby than the father.
You see, equal rights mean equal responsibility as well. You want to get 18 weeks paid holiday as a father? Good. Then do what the mother does. Take off your bra and feed the kid.
Fighting for equal rights is indeed a noble cause. You can do it two ways. You can try to eliminate the difference between the parties so they become uniform and thus equal or you can welcome the differences but make sure that neither suffers because of those. I prefer the latter.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gumbus:
30 Sep 2008 12:29:33pm
The logic in relation to the breastfeeding argument is flawed for two reasons.
1. It is possible to express milk, meaning that either parent could stay at home and care for the child in any event.
2. A significant portion of women don't breastfeed. If the argument goes that women should receive the 18 weeks (but not men) because they can breastfeed, then the leave should be made conditional upon breastfeeding on your argument. No breastfeeding, no leave.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
30 Sep 2008 10:46:07am
Kocsonya
So what if the mother dies in childbirth or suffers ongoing injury and also requires care?
Agreed that in the vast majority of cases the mother will be the primary carer, but the vast majority is not all.
When laws are made contingencies should be covered.
Remember it took Fraser to change the laws for a father to get the sole parents pension.
And yes men and women should have the same rights! No sarcasm required!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
yabbie:
30 Sep 2008 10:54:03am
Fact- women if able, should breast feed as this is best for baby. This said, many State Government's allow maternity/paternity leave to be shared between the parents and this is supported in awards. In this situation, Mum and Dad are entitled to 12 weeks leave. They can choose to share the leave (Mum can express milk if she is keen), or Mum/Dad remain at home.
New mums that return to work in some capacity (even if it is only 1/2 a day a week) are less likely to experience Post Natal Depression.
It would be good to allow parents decide what work regime would best suit their family.
- im a bloke.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Willster:
30 Sep 2008 11:36:43am
"There's an inherently closer and more intimate link between baby and mother than between baby and father; breastfeeding being the most obvious."
Kocsonya, actually, there's a heck of a lot of mothers don't breast feed, for numerous reasons, and there's a heck of a lot of fathers are primary carers for their babies. The link between baby and mother is not any closer than between baby and father other than the affect on said links by the social circumstances i.e. father having to work, or mother too sick to care for baby. You just perpetuate a myth. There's nothing inherent about it at all.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Norm McMullen:
30 Sep 2008 10:52:56am
derr., yes, the female carries the baby for nine months and at the same time works to help her family. It is necessary for bubs to have close contact with mum for those early months, very necessary for the baby's development and it is very necessary that the government gives support in achieving this. These babies will be our future Australians!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
RP:
30 Sep 2008 9:46:04am
discriminatory? the proposal is for to 'paid postnatal leave for a total of 18 weeks that can be shared by eligible parents, with an additional two weeks of paternity leave reserved for the father (or
same sex partner)'.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
30 Sep 2008 10:20:13am
Whilst I don't disagree with the concept. I would have thought pensioners who have paid their dues and full time carers should be the priority.
Once they have been looked after, we can then look at this idea.
Remember children are a choice.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 10:45:55am
Enough about the pensioners already! Where in this article is there anything to do with 'poor old' pensioners? Being on a pension is a choice - some people work until they drop! If you dont support those trying to have families, where will all the future doctors, nurses and all the other skilled service workers come from who will look after said 'pensioners'?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
30 Sep 2008 11:12:56am
The point I'm making is that super has only been round for about 30 odd years.
Therefore there is a significant group of people who have missed out through no fault of their own. AND have paid their taxes.
As for your purile point about supporting those trying to have families, we seem to have managed quite well before now.
Maybe we have to take a reality check and if we choose to have children then we sacrafice some of those luxeries in life we take for granted.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
katie:
30 Sep 2008 11:37:34am
Very good point.... lets throw it to other groups looking at more financal assistence....
"maybe we have to take a reality check and if we choose to" not save any additional money for our retirement "we have to sacrafice some of those luxeries in life we take for granted"Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
DR:
30 Sep 2008 11:00:48am
It was a choice not to save for retirement too. When in the last 40 years has there ever been any hope that you could survive on a pension? Would that be enough incentive to save.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
katie:
30 Sep 2008 11:31:54am
How does every discussion regarding goverment money end up about pensioners....... debate about pension increases aside, I'd be pretty confident that like every other organisation/business etc in the country, the goverment is capable of processing more than one issue at once...
I for one think its nice that the goverment is considering putting in place some different subsidies for families having babies...... might broaden the demosgraphics having children and create some diversity in the future populationsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gweneth:
30 Sep 2008 11:50:51am
This is one of the saddest blogs I have ever read. The selfish bitter diatribes are a lesson in how warped we have become. As a teacher I daily see how our societies inability to care for its young is creating a generation of damaged humans. We see in the news how our inability to care for our aged leads to unwarranted suffering. The concept of community is lost. "Not happy' if you can be angry that our community will support a tiny baby to be in its mother's arms for a few weeks longer then I feel great pity for you. When you and I were raising children it was a very different economic world with universal free health and education. Which generation paid for that?
Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
-
ravensclaw:
30 Sep 2008 9:41:49am
Sorry but I don't trust anything the Women's Electoral Lobby has to say. What they did to men in the 80's and 90's is a disgrace.
The maternity leave proposal requires changes to be fair.
Change "Mother" to "Primary Carer". If the mother dies during birth a father cannot get paid paternity leave due to his gender, even though he would be the primary carer.
The other parent would also require more than 2 weeks leave. If the baby or mother has difficulties e.g. injury or constant care the other more mobile parent needs to assist with that care.
The women's electoral lobby is ONLY about pitting women against men, and that's it!!!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
30 Sep 2008 9:50:50am
Do any of you people actually read the proposals before shotting your mouths off??
Fathers are eligible?? And spare me the poor bugger me it's so hard being a man tripe....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
30 Sep 2008 10:37:14am
Well "Wadd d ya know Joe" men can claim the parental leave if they are the primary carer. Maybe middle age men in suits can still be allowed to contribute after all.
I stand by my statements of the Women's Electoral Lobby.
It's hard being anyone that gets trodden on by influential and militant minority groups e.g. men, women, black or white.
Go back to the 80's and early 90's and observe how things were with health, education, family law and employment, and gender, and you'll see the Women's Electoral Lobby right in the thick of the male bashing!
CheersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
mosh:
30 Sep 2008 9:44:31am
Far from seeing this as a feminist win, I see it as a win for society as a whole. Men, women and their newborn babies will gain immensely from reduced financial pressure and the pressure of getting back to work. I can only hope that not too much of a burden falls on small businesses - this is a whole of society responsibilty and the burden should be shouldered by the Govt via the taxation system.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
30 Sep 2008 9:52:35am
I agree Mosh. In principle this is a far better expenditure than 4billion for the banking brothers!
BUT I am concerned small business will get shouldered with all the admin/paperwork etc, which is an unfair burden. Love the idea, don;t mind the expense, but let's dont turn it into another GST problem.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sinekal:
30 Sep 2008 10:19:17am
Mosh excuse me. I am a man. Please explain how in detail I will gain immensely from reduced financial pressure unless I have a vasectomy reversal, find a willing woman of child bearing age and produce another heir to compete with the two tax paying adult ones I already have. Then I will get reduced financial pressure? Not. What a selfish bunch of WIIFM's As I small business owner I will be paying for someone elses kids. So the Govt should pay via the tax system. Hang on, I pay tax. WTF ?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 10:49:37am
With a rapidly ageing population, and low birth rates (despite minor 'boom') where are all the new skilled members of society going to come from? No encouragement for mothers to remain employed either? Hey look - the economy has gone up the brown creek without a paddle because of a feww short sighted small business owners!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 9:54:01am
Well what has the 40 to 60 years old female worker ever got.
We paid full price for our childcare....nothing from a govt.
We paid full price for a house....no first home buyer scheme in those days.
We paid for our own maternity leave and expected not one handout.
We paid to feed and clothe and bring up our children...no baby bonus,no handouts from anyone.
So at work I continue to look out my window at the women pushing strollers and count my tax dollars!
It has become a bit like road rage for our generation of working women....we almost hate the young wife, mother....they are living on our tax paid. And then they expect us to serve them, wait on them and be nice to them.
ENOUGH is a ENOUGH.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 10:14:13am
Talk about bitter and twisted.
You should be proud that your generation paved the way and made this kind of thing possible.
That a new generation is doing better than the old is the cornerstone of civilisation, not something to whinge about.
Get over it. It's likely someone you love may benefit from it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:19:55am
I see my daughter won't get a job !
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
katie:
30 Sep 2008 11:52:02am
Are you serious?? So your basing your paid maternity leave objection on the fact that because of benifits like this your daughter wont get a job?? I must be really confused, I thought paid maternity leave was for people who already had jobs..
I think it's ok if your generation of women is unhappy about this, cause there are plenty of benifits that come out of tax money directed at your generation that i dont recieve any benifit from.... and dare i say it, i reliase thier were not other options at the time, but perhaps this new generation of mothers, whos own parents worked 2-3 jobs, were in childcare fulltime, and missed out on lots of mum and dad time, are saying enough is enough we want more for our children..
loosly put..all generations work and pay taxes (or have), all generations have infrastructure and services in place that benifit them and these are funded through taxes, taxes go towards benifiting society as a whole, there are plenty of things that the individual doesnt benifit from,Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
quinny:
30 Sep 2008 12:25:33pm
Not happy, i'm just not happy with your argument.
If you did the numbers, you would see the youth of today are doing it tough. The cars, plasma's etc. are NOT theirs but their parents - perhaps closer in age to your generation. Young people have next to no chance of saving for a deposit on a home by the age of twenty as older generations did. By the time they graduate they are left with a hecs debt up to their eyeballs, which sets them back further. The average age that women have children is around 33 years. I'm not asking you to get out the violin, for I am sure that is not what the young want, but have a heart and consider that each generation has their own privleges and their own struggles. The freedom and good life you percieve them to have must come from television land, becasue it certainly does not reflect reality.
I suggest you educate yourself and put your perceptions to the test.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:23:40am
Then you better get ready for a hugh backlash from older women...because believe me we are angry. We are the generation that worked 2 and 3 jobs to raise our families. We are the generation that expected nothing in the form of welfare payments.
So now i think that you should come to my house and do some cleaning and general chores while you are on your tax funded leave, because you owe me!!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 10:56:01am
Oh please spare us the tripe! Perhaps we should take away womens right to vote because earlier generations didnt have it. And access to safe abortion too! And hereditary property rights should only be passed to men. Access to education - you shouldnt have that either.
And perhaps while we're at it, we younger generation want cheaper houses that can be bought on one income so that both partners dont HAVE to work full time. And perhaps we should get a retrospective look in on HECS fees for all the boomers who got free tertiary education. And we can pull the pension from under you oldies because we wont see one.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
30 Sep 2008 11:37:17am
Sound's like you're angry anyway.
I'll clean your floors when you pay me back for my education (which you were offered for free) and pay your own health care costs.
What makes you think that Gen Y's are so bad? I've worked no less than 60 hours/week since I finished school and it's taken more than ten years to get into a position to afford to have a kid. When you were young I though the older generations had a go at you for being no-good layabouts with long hair and listening to rock'n'roll. You must sound like your parents.
As a society we are putting some value on families now that we have a low birth rate and other lifestyle issues. It's not great but it's better policy than has been in the past. Not everyone is going to be advantaged by every policy.
Young people don't come up to you and whinge about how you didn't provide for your own retirement and health care do they?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SpethM:
30 Sep 2008 12:35:40pm
that's funny - my mother falls into y9our "generation bracket" and she never worked from the day her first was born until I myself turned 16 (over 20 years OUT of the workforce)....and I know that she was not an exception. So exactly where are all these women who were breaking their backs in 2-3 jobs to keep the family going????? If I remember rightly from my childhood (and I'm sure many of my generation will attest to this) it was the father who worked long hours and saw precious little of his family during those years. I think back and the only days we got to see our dad were Sunday's and then we had to be quiet and considerate so that he could get a proper rest before going back out to do it all again.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
sinekal:
30 Sep 2008 10:33:41am
Taking care of the elderly is also a cornerstone of civilisation happy dude. In Australia we go further and take care of other members of society including people too lazy to work, people who have several children as an income source and even people who cheat to get money from the Government.
What a relief that you will have such dedication to taking care of the elderly by making the same personal sacrifices they did.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 10:47:46am
I already take care of my grandparents thankyou very much and i do it with pleasure.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 10:51:35am
Not only do i look after my grand parents with pleasure i don't mind seeing people benefit in ways they didn't/couldn't.
It's people whinging the "what about me" line that get my back up.
If i've got to pay a few more dollars tax so a mother can stay at home for those vital first couple of months stress free, i'll gladly do that.
We live in a society and it is not all about grabbing what you can get. Sure people will abuse the system but that's life.
stop being so bitter.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jh:
30 Sep 2008 11:52:30am
Nice work groover...I'm with you.
If people aren't doing as well it's all 'We'll be rooned, bring back the good old days'......
When young people might do better then it's all 'Not fair I didn't get that, take it off them!!'....
If you're a whinger there's no pleasing you. Happiness is a decision, not a givernment policy, but I for one am only too happy to see this come in, even though we personally won't benefit from it directly.
Indirectly, less pressure on families makes for more relaxed parents, and that's a good thing.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
30 Sep 2008 10:54:44am
We do sinekal, not only do we have to pay for our own retirements (through super) we also pay our taxes which support the pension... so maybe you should consider all things before attacking our generation.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sinekal:
30 Sep 2008 11:11:09am
Ben your employer is paying your super not you. You might be topping it up if your income allows, or to save tax. If you do it to save tax you are depriving the system of money it needs to pay maternity leave right ?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
CF Zero:
30 Sep 2008 11:52:46am
No, super contributions are pay increases we werent allowed to receive in the hand. We pay our own super, not our employers. Our employers are redirecting a portion of our salaries.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Kocsonya:
30 Sep 2008 10:37:52am
How far can we get back? Do you realise that if all women said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH every time a change was suggested, you'd still be a female serf with about as much right as a dog?
By the way, if you do not value your children as much as to wish them a life better than what you had, well ... that's really, really sad.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sinekal:
30 Sep 2008 10:54:30am
Kocsonya I am 100% with Not Happy on this. Without even knowing her, I can assure you she does value her children and has spent the greater part of her life raising them with love, hard work and no social feel good handouts. Her objection and mine is that having happily done so, we now have to contribute to everyone elses.
Will ENOUGH be ENOUGH when you have to pay for someone elses benefit rather than be the beneficiary?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
30 Sep 2008 11:17:14am
I would not be a beneficiary, I already have my children (gone through education, etc) and no plans of having any more.
Yes, I'd be happy to pay. The same way I'd be happy to pay for better public education and better public healthcare.
I do believe that caring about each other rather than maximising our personal gain no matter what happens to everybody else results in a better outcome overall. I think this concept generally goes under the name of "society".
With regards to maternity leave, it seems that most of the world have realised its advantages, with only 5 countries not having implemented it already.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:54:59am
Well it seems to me that you want what my grandmother had....the right to stay at home to raise your family.
The people that are adovating this maternity leave are that same women that gave women th"right to work ' back in the 70's and 80's....the same ones that sent US out to work and took our right away to stay at home.
Support your own families and get off my taxes.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 11:04:52am
They are not "your" taxes, they are the Commonwealth of Australia's. Big difference.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
30 Sep 2008 11:24:11am
Um, I don't think it was *forced* maternity leave, or have I missed the clause about the jail term when you do not take it?
By the way, I hope your grandmother was also in arms shouting ENOUGH IS ENOUGH when you wanted to have a right to run your business?
As per the taxes, glad that you mentioned. I'd appreciate if you'd refrain to call the fire brigade in case of your house being on fire, would not use any public roads and please avoid taking any medicine on the HBS list. I do really have to watch where my taxes go, you know...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Daniel:
30 Sep 2008 9:54:44am
I cant belive how far behind Australia is when I hear things like this just seriously being considered now. Its a joke. This should have been law decades ago. What was John Howard doing in his term in government. He was so out of touch it wasnt funny. Lets hope Rudd isnt the same.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 9:55:23am
And as I drive around on roads that are a disgrace and go to the local high school where they can't afford wood in the woodwork room to teach their students, I think....
what a selfish generation to spoilt arrogant women that think they have some right to expect anything from any govt....what happened to supporting your own family and living on what you make.
ITS A DISGRACE!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
waryofitall:
30 Sep 2008 10:31:56am
The thing about society is that it progresses and improvements are made. I'm sorry that things were so hard for you raising your children, but I am also grateful to the women in your generation who persisted with the quest for equality - the right to vote, the right to continue working after marriage, the right to take contraception, and the right to education etc etc. I already have maternity leave in my employment package, and what I really love about it is that it takes a lot of pressure off my husband when we do decide to have children, he won't be working crazy hours and will have the time to love his children.
Thanks Kevin Rudd, this is truly a step forward for a society that values children and the work it takes to raise them well.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 9:57:05am
Well I say your husband should get a second or third job and work 7 days a week to support the family while you are out of the workforce....thats what my husband had to do....
and we didn't have a dishwasher, mobile phone, pool, 2 cars(only 1), good furniture. We didn't have a holiday for 10 years, air conditioning, new clothes ...the list goes on and on.
SUPPORT YOUR OWN FAMILY!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
snails:
30 Sep 2008 10:10:39am
Wouldnt you rather have had your partner home to help, to share the joy of children?
I'm not about ensuring people ahve extra money to spend on things, for me it is about having extra time to spend with those people you love.
My parents were able to make the decision to have one parent stay at home, and i am eternally grateful for that. I only hope other people have the opportunity to make that choice.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:16:56am
It only takes 1 carer to look after the family. What sort of a man stays at home on tax dollars to play with his children.
Child rearing is not a a paid job. Being a mother is not living on other peoples taxes.
This money belongs in schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
It will put women back not forward.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 10:58:19am
I wouldve loved a tiny bit more time to bond with my new baby daughter, but no, being three people on one income, i didnt have the choice but to return straight to work just as you seem to advocate.
Let me guess, you're also the same person who complains about the youth of today not getting enough parental giudance right?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
30 Sep 2008 11:23:37am
There are a few grumpy old old women who don't seem to have enjoyed their life and (for some reason unbeknownst to me) want everyone else to be as miserable as them. Don't worry about it Jay.
They have a hard accepting that time moves in one direction. Things are never going to be like they were and they would probably still find something to whinge about if it did.
The world changes and most of the time it's hard to cope with. I think it's good that we as a society are starting to value family more.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 10:17:22am
So your experience should be everybody's?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:27:02am
No...but seeing I might employ you I might sack you because my business can't afford to pay for this!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
yabbie:
30 Sep 2008 10:45:16am
Your business would not be paying for it, the tax payer would.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 11:07:14am
My business would be paying for it.....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
30 Sep 2008 12:33:15pm
That's not what the policy states, but thank you very much.
(You would have to cover the super though).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
yabbie:
30 Sep 2008 10:42:27am
Smart move. The likliness of a man aged 15-35 killing themselves has increased significantly in 30 years. Men are 3-4 times more likely to kill themselves than women.
I am sure an extra two jobs, additional stress, decreased sleep, poor diet and lack of exercise will contribute to the above trend. I suspect your advice will not assist relationships, parents, families or outcomes for children.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Not Happy:
30 Sep 2008 10:59:19am
Well..if we had to cope with it then you can too! Or were you all born with a silver spoon in your mothers!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
melrat:
30 Sep 2008 11:30:34am
Not happy, as we can all see by your comments a child bought up in your generation are all about complaining. Maybe this is because your parents had to work so hard to support you, feed, cloth you, put a roof over your head and not spend any quality loving time with you.
It is a scientific fact that children benifet throughout their entire life from having one on one with at least one parent for at least the first 6months.
If you think that going back to a time where it was all about being a adult and children were seen not heard would be a great thing for this country then you are sadly mistaken. Going forward is the only way even if it is one step at a time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Wake up Australia:
30 Sep 2008 11:29:42am
Totally agree Not Happy. Couples today 'want it all' (including the ultimate accessory - 2.5 children) and are far too selfish to give up the big house with all the mod cons, new cars etc. If they truly had the interests of their children uppermost then they should not even consider having children unless the mother (or father I suppose) was prepared and able to stay with the child fulltime for at least the first five years or so. The root cause of so many of our social problems today is the lack of full time attentive parenting from those that make the conscious decision to have children let alone the 'accidental' children of both the married and unmarried females who are destined (generally) to be dysfunctional children/teenagers/adults.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Pen Pal:
30 Sep 2008 10:03:32am
Who in the hell is going to pay for all these "freebies" that we are voting for ourselves these days?
The workforce is getting older, there is not enough young people coming through to replace them, but still we want to milk the system dry. The budget surplus will be looking a bit sick at this time next year!
We want to "bail out" individuals for their life choices, but we don't want to bail out the very financial system which funds them.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Trevor:
30 Sep 2008 11:33:00am
You answered your own question... there is not enough young people coming through.
So, surely, making it more attractive and feasible for women to have children is a GOOD thing?!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Green:
30 Sep 2008 10:03:44am
I hardly consider this to be a pro-feminist piece of policy - rather, it serves only to emphasise and further differentiate between men and women in the workplace.
The result for women of child-bearing age like myself is likely to be that employers will be cautious about hiring us and, given the choice, will instead preferentially hire male candidates. And who could blame them, when having an employee away for several months is likely to have an impact on their business?
It also galls me that the taxpayer will be called upon to foot the bill for people's personal choice to have a child. Those of us who choose to do the environmentally responsible thing and not procreate will be financially slugged in order to fund others' lifestyle choices.
If you choose to have a child, you shouldn't expect anyone else (government or employer) to bear the consequences of that choice. Where is the equality for all, whether male or female, and whether parents or childless? Certainly not in this piece of policy.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
waryofitall:
30 Sep 2008 10:20:42am
These same arguments were the ones used to argue against equal pay for women in the workplace. Women who have children (it is not a lifestyle choice, it is called continuation of our species) lose years of their working lives, and in a community that is basically economically driven, this makes having children a difficult decision... which is why more and more women are opting out or having them later. This has economic impacts as well. The baby boomer generation will have less tax-payers coming up behind them to support them, and there will be less workers to run industry. A few years ago Howard and co. suggested we have 3 children each, one for us, one for our husbands, and one for Australia... well, that's a serious economic ask for a woman - to give up nearly 10 years of her working (and super-annuation saving) years. Why shouldn't the community support its own regeneration, when workers comp, tax breaks for investors and massive subsidies for environmentally destructive companies eat into just as much of the community money pot. The other option is that all contraception, family planning and abortion becomes free and accessible so that we can fully take up these so-called "lifestyle choices", and work from 16 to 60 with no economic interruption. Bummer if you actually want to contribute by bringing a healthy happy creative productive curious interested and joyful member of society into the world...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stop_The_Madness:
30 Sep 2008 10:39:17am
And these are the same tired arguments trotted out by those who want to continue propogating their own genes at the expense of the planet's health.
Choosing to have a child is not a selfless act performed out of societal duty - it is a choice people make because they feel a desire to see their own genes perpetuated. Ergo, it is a "lifestyle choice" - one people make not because they are forced to, but because they choose to.
There are plenty of options available to prevent conception and yes, most are available cheaply and some are even free. The cost of contraceptives is certainly cheaper than the cost of raising a child, so the argument that have children because they can't afford contraception is fallacious.
The reality is that every extra person introduced to this planet adds to the environmental baseload. In view of this fact we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children; rather, we should be levying a tax on those who choose to have children.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
peter69:
30 Sep 2008 10:56:48am
The only decent comment so far.
With 1 Billion people considered starving. A lot more will go hungry (Almost starving)
People have children for self serving reasons only!
If you have an unwavering desire to become a parent, why not adopt!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
waryofitall:
30 Sep 2008 11:03:24am
Actually Stop_The_Madness - I don't have children of my own but I work in the industry that surrounds the reproductive choices people make, there are over 15000 small businesses alone in Greater Brisbane - everything from holiday play programs to child speech pathology and children's clothing... so to suggest that having children is selfish and doesn't contribute to society, in fact detracts from it, is kind of silly. The contribution that child-birth and child-raising makes to the economics of society is quite large. Secondly, to suggest that it is an ego-based decision is to ignore the biological drive that humans have to reproduce.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
peter69:
30 Sep 2008 11:59:40am
to follow biological drive over the clear damage that over population is doing... is clear selfishness!
People have children to propagate themselves, even your statement assets this.
What a rediculous reason to have Children!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Happy dude:
30 Sep 2008 11:07:26am
Stop the madness- Would you argue that line with your parents?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 12:37:35pm
Should I feel galled that my taxes are going toward paying for the health care of the many overweight people clogging up the system? Or the pensioners who chose not to save extra for their retirement and rely on government handouts? Or the fact that tertiary education is 80% subsidised by the taxpayer? Its the way taxes work, its no surprise.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
DR:
30 Sep 2008 10:08:22am
This is going to encourage more to have kids when they cant afford to. The sooner people realise it is a twenty year plus commitment not a bonus or weeks or months of support the better it will be for the kids.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aardvark:
30 Sep 2008 11:00:26am
Agreed. Anyone who considers that $500 a week for an 18-week period is sufficient inducement to have a child is someone who probably can't afford kids in the long-term.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 11:00:52am
Thats a tenuous conclusion to draw - i can imagine anyone being dumb enough to have a child for a the minimum wage for a few weeks.
Its about short term help during a very stressful and difficult time in life and allowing better family bonding - this shouldnt be viewed as a bad thing!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
sinekal:
30 Sep 2008 10:12:55am
The proposal that I contribute financially to someone elses desire to breed is an obscenity. In our wonderful democracy can I choose to abstain?
It is the baby boomers who did not have the overseas travel, the four bedroom first home, the swimming pool, new car or all the electronic toys that are now apparently essential. They now have to pay for this at a time when the quality of their own retirement is under threat.
I have no great problem handing over my assets to my own children. That the Government should take it off me to give it to someone elses spoilt and greedy obnoxious brats disgusts me.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
30 Sep 2008 11:04:33am
Such a rubbish straw man argument. It IS the baby boomers with the McMansions and no kids and all the disposable income while the GenX and GenY are struggling on two incomes to pay off houses that cost more than double in real terms than what the boomers had to pay, who then have to go down on one income when they have a child... But might i point out that the future children being born are also the ones who will be providing the services and looking after you when you are old?!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Trevor:
30 Sep 2008 11:35:57am
Well, I hope that in return, your children provide you with absolutely everything you need.
Meanwhile, as my 'lifestyle choice' (not) as a gay man will mean I don't have any children, I'll be more than happy to help pay for others to breed so that I don't die a lonely, destitute old man...
...do you live in a society, or a separate enclave?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
gjc: