Parental leave policy back-to-front
Posted
Half of women workers are already entitled to paid maternity leave funded by their employer. (ABC, file photo)
Paid parental leave has become an important symbolic issue for many women, and support for its introduction has been passionate and vocal - so much so, that rather than being a means to an end, paid parental leave has become the end itself.
The result is a back-to-front policy making process. Rather than giving the Productivity Commission a set of objectives with a brief to design policy to meet them, the Government has asked the commission to design a set of objectives which justify their desired policy.
Of the three key objectives identified by the commission, the first two - maternal and infant health and well-being and women's workforce participation - are reasonably straightforward.
The final objective - a broader social goal of helping parents to achieve better work/life balance, promoting the involvement of fathers in parenting, and advancing gender equity in the home and workplace - is, in the words of the commission, "more contestable."
Some participants in the public inquiry process suggested that paid parental leave would be seen as an "endorsement by society" that combining paid work and parenthood is normal and worthwhile. More and more families are disposing of the old "norm" of dad as breadwinner and mum at home, and are sharing paid work and parenting in different ways.
More than half of mothers with a child aged four or under are already in the workforce, and about half of women workers are already entitled to paid maternity leave funded by their employer. This suggests that a process of social change is well underway. The question is whether the government should play a role in trying to speed it up.
This is a risky strategy for two reasons - one practical and one philosophical.
The practical danger is that that government policy which tries to speed up social change may have perverse effects. The Productivity Commission's report notes that the introduction of similar policies in countries such as the UK, Canada and Sweden has "entrenched the assumption that only mothers brought up children." Despite these policies' professed objective of improving gender equity, the result has often been greater hurdles for women to overcome in the workplace. The commission notes that if paid parental leave has the effect of increasing women's participation in the workforce it will improve the situation of women relative to men in the labour market. However "by itself, paid parental leave will not reduce by much the gap between male and female labour force participation".
The second danger relates to the degree to which we want government policy to dictate social standards. There is no doubt that public policy must evolve to reflect changing norms in society. However, it is highly questionable whether governments should enact policy to "endorse" a particular arrangement which might represent some families, but certainly not all.
Views about appropriate gender roles are varied. Some argue that the gender split which saw dad in the office and mum in the kitchen is an anachronistic and socially-constructed custom which should be challenged and overturned. However, for others this is the ideal family arrangement.
The stay-at-home versus working mum "wars" which erupt periodically in the media demonstrate just how passionately many families feel about their choice. These divergences reflect people's varying preferences, and none can legitimately claim to be privileged.
Rather than being biased towards a particular choice, policy should give families maximum freedom to make their own choices. Each individual has a different idea about what will make them happy or their life good, so any attempt by government to enshrine a "norm" will necessarily deny some families the free choice to pursue their version of happiness. Instead, governments should protect the "right" of individuals and families to choose what they see as good, rather than promote a particular version of "the good".
Some proponents of paid parental leave have argued that the existing system of family benefits privileges single earner families over dual income families, and that the introduction of paid parental leave would redress this balance.
Recent research from ANU demographer Peter McDonald appears to confirm that families in which one parent stays at home do in fact receive more generous taxpayer subsidies than families where both parents work. But rather than simply adding another payment as compensation for two earner families, wouldn't it make more sense to reform the whole family payments system to make it fair and equitable for all?
The existing system of family benefits is complex and offers families many competing incentives and disincentives, which have been added on top of each other over a period of years. As McDonald puts it, "Each 'bolt-on' had its ideological or political rationale in its time but the outcome by 2008 is an illogical, inefficient, complex jumble of conflicting principles." Paid parental leave is simply another "bolt-on".
The challenge of designing a system of family payments which is equitable, simple and reflective of the varied circumstances of modern families can only be met through a wholesale review of the entire system of family payments. The upcoming Henry Review of the tax-transfer system is the appropriate place for this review. The redesign of family policy needs to start from the bottom up, not top-down and back to front.
Jessica Brown is a policy analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies. Her paper Million Dollar Babies: Paid Parental Leave and Family Policy Reform is released today.
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (102)
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.
-
AJ:
18 Nov 2008 11:45:09am
It's cruel making women return to work as soon as possible - both for the woman and child. And it's unfair for employers to have to pay for leave for someone who is about to become an ex-employee anyway. It really would be better for all if we start gearing society towards supporting parents staying together and having single income families.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
18 Nov 2008 1:03:01pm
"making women return to work'? It's actually a choice AJ.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tallulah Foxtrot:
18 Nov 2008 2:20:26pm
Friend Felix - if there's one thing you are, it is consistent - I guess there's something to be said for that .
Yoiur statement, however, is SO wrong on SO many counts, I can't begin to adress it .... open your eyes.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
CF:
18 Nov 2008 2:23:16pm
It would be nice if it did seem like a choice for everyone.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
KGee:
18 Nov 2008 3:43:54pm
Whos choice is it to have a child. If adults want to bear children it is their choice.
When you make a choice you need to be aware of the consequences of your choice and not expect eveyone else to pay for your choice.
Employers are human too but many people who cannot take responsibilty for their own decisions are eventually going to price themselves out of a job.
An employer will need to make a choice to employ only females above child bearing age to keep his business viable.
START TAKING RESPOSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS - IF YOU WANT TO BE AN ADULT ACT LIKE ONE.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Veronika:
18 Nov 2008 3:25:31pm
It's certainally what the government seems intent on doing. And you don't really have a choice if you can't support yourself and a child without the income.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Norm McMullen:
18 Nov 2008 4:13:49pm
Felix, way it works is that if a couple want a child first thing is that the woman must be employed. That done the woman gets pregnant and applies for "baby leave" and the employer pays. The employer then puts his prices up and you and I and everyone else pays. This pregnant woman therefore pays for all the other pregnant women. We all pay and pay and pay.
Politicians who introduce these things as vote winners get another term in goverment on a huge salary and when his wife becomes pregnant he hires a housemaid and nanny. You pay for that too.
Oh, I forgot, when the new mum returns to work she puts bubs in childcare, ABC probably, and guess what.....yeah, you got it, we pay again to pull ABC out of the s***! Bubs grows up without upbringing or manners and roams the streets getting into all sorts of bother.
Want to go back to where dad works and saves up with a view to having offspring. Mum does her bit like they did in the past and bubs grows up to be a decent human being!
Or are we too far down the wrong road?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
muzz:
18 Nov 2008 11:48:46am
An interesting but awkward set of ideas set forward by Ms Brown.
She suggests that this policy leads public opinion rather than the other way around. I am surpised at this assertion as there is no evidence to support it. Opinion yes but no hard facts. It flies in the face of the reality I see each day in my role as a Community Nurse.
Parents do want a choice and forced leave is not the goal proposed. Parents may choose to return to work early but they will have some financial backing if they do not choose so.
To hold parenting in high esteem is a noble and common sense approach to this age old conundrum. Paid parental leave is a common sense approach to one of the barriers to safe and effective work and parenting.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Mark:
18 Nov 2008 4:39:24pm
What the author is saying, which is different in this case, is that in the policy development process, you start with a set of issues and a goal. You then develop a policy that will resolve those issues and achieve that goal. That policy is a means to an end.
What has happened with maternity leave, however, is that we've started with a position that Australia must have a paid maternity leave scheme, but we haven't considered what issues currently exist that we are trying to resolve and what the goal for such a scheme is. As the author notes, the scheme has become an end unto itself instead of a means to an end.
Bad policy happens when the consequences that policy are not fully considered. This means the policy will not meet its stated objectives, or will meet them but have some other unintended effect. When a policy becomes an end unto itself, inevitably little thought is given to the consequences of that policy.
What needs to be given serious thought is what issue exists that requires a maternity leave scheme? What is the goal for such a scheme? Is there another way to resolve those issues and achieve that goal? If not, how can the scheme be designed to achieve that goal and avoid unintended consequences.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Z:
18 Nov 2008 11:52:22am
Any paid "maternity" leave is discriminatory. It discriminates against fathers & those who choose not to have families. A better alternative would be a system of paid Personal leave whereby any person can put their job on hold for say up to 12 months in a lifetime and receive Social security benefits (at an appropriate level) during that time. If the person wants to use the benefit to have children, study, travel, rest etc this would be a matter for them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
18 Nov 2008 12:12:12pm
That assumes no value on having children, or families. Surely a society must value families if it is to sustain itself for longer than a few decades. After all, it is the core unit of organisation biologically, socially, economically, psychologically, physically etc.
You have put forward a valid model. Perhaps a series of family tax benefits coupled with your peroposal would be a good way forward.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
18 Nov 2008 2:31:47pm
Sustaining is one thing, but the inconvenient truth of many of our problems is that the get worse with population growth. A declining population will go a long way to solving pollution problems, greenhouse gas emissions, housing shortage etc. The presumption that the economy can keep growing forever is incorrect as there are biophysical limitations to the Earth's carrying capacity. Many argue we have already reached these limits. Thus couples who decide to have less than 2 children are doing the planet and future generations a favour.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
L:
18 Nov 2008 4:35:33pm
Humans passed the Earth's ability to sustain our (global) population in 1982 according to Mathis Wackernagel's well accepted Ecological Footprint methodology.
As Australian citizens we will have different views than as global citizens. Many people living in small towns probably want population growth in their town, zero growth for their country and negative growth globally. How do we reconcile this if most people feels like this?
Number of children per household is inversely related household income. Perhaps with China and India's economies growing, their population growth will peter out accordingly.
Personally I don't think the Earth has the capacity to accommodate this, and then Africa doing the same.
The challenge will be to find the balance in a way that least unsustainable.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
bpm:
18 Nov 2008 2:55:27pm
You assume that children do have a value to (global) society -they do not. Rather they simply add to the overwhelming pressure already placed on a fragile ecosystem
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Bullfrog:
18 Nov 2008 12:57:52pm
My preference would be for parental leave (ignoring gender).
Each parent is entitled to the same period of leave, which could be taken concurrently, serially, or through alternating blocks (such as staged return to work, with 2 days leave, 3 days work for example, and potentially the other parent being home for the days).
I'm not convinced on the 12 months break for every person. Society seems to have decided that children are a 'good thing', and as such feels that the community needs to support kids.
Despite my horror at some of the brats that exist out there, the appalling parenting practices I see, I accept that children are important by the community standard, and that certain subsidies will be made.
I don't see a benefit to society by providing a similar amount of leave for non-child raising purposes. Unless it was for carer's leave (eg a period of time needed to help transition an elderly parent into a more permanent arrangement).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Green:
18 Nov 2008 1:20:58pm
Parental leave is all well and good for those who have children, but what about those of us who remain childless? How is it fair to advocate leave based on a person's reproductive status?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
M.A.:
18 Nov 2008 2:26:02pm
Everyone has the right to choose whether or not they have children, but whether or not we do we are all still part of a society that has children and adults and we therefore need to look after our fellow citizens of whichever age. People without children would benefit from making sure that other people's children are well supported and nurtured by their parents because that would give us a greater chance of having those children grow up to be productive citizens. And this would be of benefit to everyone - childless or not. I would apply the same principle to looking after the aged, the disabled and so on - it benefits us all to help our fellow citizens and it harms us all when they are not looked after.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zac:
18 Nov 2008 2:43:29pm
"Everyone has the right to choose whether or not they have children" - Incorrect.
Everyone who is capable of bearing children has that right. Others do not.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
topend:
18 Nov 2008 2:48:36pm
If were only true that it is a choice!!!!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rfnk:
18 Nov 2008 3:28:21pm
Everyone has the right to choose whether or not they have children? Please grow a brain and then exercise some sensitivity towards the very high proportion of couples who are unable to have children.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
M.A.:
18 Nov 2008 3:55:21pm
I said everyone has the right to choose, this doesn't mean everyone can. Of course I realise some people can't have children for a myriad of reasons and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone - we're restricted by space in how much we can say, so you need to factor that in before extrapolating too much.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John D:
18 Nov 2008 4:20:20pm
My preference is, if you want kids, save up and budget etc like they did in the old days.
Don't rely on others to subsidise your choices.
If you can't afford to have kids and raise them well, using your on resources. Then don't have themAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
tom:
18 Nov 2008 12:05:18pm
Awww i was all suckered in to thinking there'd actually be some good philosophical debate on the issue given the Kantian statement the abc threw in the linking headline.
Sadly not, but you could review your argument with some Kantian theory and make it much stronger :)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joan mohr:
18 Nov 2008 12:05:44pm
Another reason why the government should make life on the land profitable instead of bringing in imported food. It's a great place to bring kids up where you all work together. kids learn to work without knowing it. What you earn there is what you get!!Bring them up there to grade12, send them to the city to Uni, and watch them go. They have already learned to work.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
C:
18 Nov 2008 3:07:45pm
How can the government make life on the land profitable when the farmers continue to degrade our land with the unsustainable land management practices that they've dumbly adopted from the vested interest agrochemical companies?
Only when the famers of Australia stop land clearing, broad scale tillage, leaving paddocks fallow, excessive pesticide usage, think about using the hydrology of the land rather than manipulating it for their own gains and stop stealing from their grandchildren should they be rewarded with government assistance. To being with, I suggest that you try mulch farming.
Stop looking for a hand out from your tree stump soap box, Joan. Take some responsibility for our land that your fellow farmers have raped and maybe we'll start to listen to you again.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tag:
18 Nov 2008 12:09:21pm
Paid maternity leave is nonsense. Sick leave and vacation leave are well and good. But this paid leave goes too far.
You employ a person because you expect that they will provide skill and service to your organisation.
Then all of a sudden, they need to take maternity leave.
Where is the skill gone? Where has the work gone? Not only that, but now you are expected to pay them for their absence. Then they come back and request part time. You are usually forced to comply.
So you employed a full time female worker, expecting a certain level of service. You employed that person believing that she would provide the same level of service as any male. This is supposed to be a gender equal world, after all.
Now you have a part time worker, who just got a mass of paid leave. Assuming, of course, that she chooses to come back to work at all.
Still wonder why companies discriminate on which gender they employ?
At any rate, everyone else has to pay for it. The other workers (of both gender) have to pick up the slack, or a new employee needs to be paid to do the work. The business has to fork out money, in essence so their employee can not work.
If you wish to have a child, then this is your choice. But it is unfair to have a child on the sufferance of others. If the government wishes to value the contributions of mothers to society, they should shell out the money.
But what benefit is having a child to your employer? Why should they pay?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
K:
18 Nov 2008 12:47:25pm
Oh boo hoo. Unless the entire world wants to go back to a men-only workforce while the women stay at home and pop out babies, then that idea is unrealistic.
At least this money is going towards building the next generation stronger and maintaining women in the workforce. There are more wasteful uses for money out there. I realise businesses wouldn't want to fork out money and appear to get nothing in return, but this is the world standard. People don't like paying a fortune in taxes either, but guess what, you have to do it to fund services and to generally improve the world you live in. This is the same thing.
For women, it gives them the option of having a family, whilst maintaining a decent lifestyle and also have the ability to return to work later. Not choosing between having children and being a productive member of the workforce (which they probably spent a good deal of their lives training for in the first place).
If you don't support women when they go to have a family, there won't be any incentive to come back to work at all. Not into any full time work anyway. And then you will really loose those skills.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kylie:
18 Nov 2008 2:21:18pm
In countries like England, paid maternity leave is paid by the government. Instead of the ridiculous "baby bonus", we should have government-funded maternity leave. Employers shouldn't suffer, but paid maternity leave is necessary. Mothers should get, say, 70% of the wage they were earning, if they were at the employment for more than a year. Unemployed mothers can get the parenting payments and childcare benefits they would get anyway.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 3:02:46pm
In fact, similar to the Swedish model. I don't think there will be any political support for this system: there will be some (vanishihngly small tho) women who will get many $100 000s to have their child.
We arleady see the 'it's bad if I can't benefit' crowd here: imagine the furore then!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tag:
18 Nov 2008 2:27:35pm
The gender equality revolution was suppost to be about both genders contributing equally at work and home. It was not supposed to involve one gender subsidising the other.
Do this, and there is no equality at all.
Both genders have the same choice. Raise a child, or earn an income.
You claim to advocate the concept of choice. In reality, you advocate the concept of wanting everything at once, and for someone else to front the bill.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Johnny:
18 Nov 2008 2:53:08pm
Bravo Tag.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 3:12:18pm
Last time I checked, only women have breasts. Perhaps I had better get an update . . .
Seriously, nature knows no strict equality of the nipple: only women are able to breat feed and, given the overwhelming body of evidence, this is the desirable thing to do.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Young Marto:
18 Nov 2008 4:11:27pm
And men are generally physically stronger. Does that mean no-one should employ women in jobs involving manual labour?
Your statement (and this leave proposal) contradicts the gender equality movement greatly. Feminism is a dinosaur, chalkie. Move on.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
paul:
18 Nov 2008 2:34:45pm
Mate, Tag has it all right, and you have it wrong.
Until relatively recently, mothers have made a choice; do i want children enough to make certain sacrifices? Nowadays, they can have their cake and eat it too.
My mother did not get a single cent to help her raise myself and my sister, so why should the current generation of mothers? Seems like everyone in this world is just after a free ride these days.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Roger:
18 Nov 2008 2:50:47pm
Well if we head into a major recession/depression (which seems almost inevitable), we'll be wanting *less* ready and willing workers, not more. To introduce paid maternity leave in this climate is obscene - it will lead to gross economic inequalities and a have/have-not scenario of the highest order. There will be those with no job whatsoever, and those with a job and a generous maternity leave scheme to boot. It's all very well to talk about a skills shortage and retaining good staff during boom times, but when the hard times hit, it's a different matter altogether. Jobs will be scarce, and those in jobs should not expect their employer to pay for what is ultimately a personal choice. And please, don't start telling me about the contribution of your children to society - yes they will contribute, but equally we are living in an overpopulated world. You want children - that's fine - but don't tell me you're doing it as some altruistic gesture to benefit the rest of society.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Stop_The_Madness:
18 Nov 2008 1:24:18pm
As a woman of child-bearing age it worries me that if paid maternity leave is introduced, no employer will look at me in the same way again. Instead of seeing someone who is capable and can do the job, they'll see a potential drain on their resources.
Rather than fixing any perceived gender inequalities in the workforce, I frankly think a paid maternity scheme will serve to exaccerbate these issues.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 2:17:21pm
Major companies on average pay more as it is and their capacity to live with maternity leave will mean that they will be able to employ the skilled up women in child rearing ages that the short-sighted smaller companies reject.
Perhaps part of the reason return on investment is so much higher in major corporations?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stop_The_Madness:
18 Nov 2008 3:14:22pm
So it's okay if the only employment options for women become limited to big business?
A paid maternity leave scheme is simply unlikely to be affordable for small or medium sized businesses, not due to their "short-sightedness" but due to the economic realities of the situation.
Until employees are able to be indentured or made to work "return of service" periods, there is no reason for a company to invest in maternity leave, knowing that those employees are free to quit at any time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
M.A.:
18 Nov 2008 2:30:43pm
You only need to look at countries like Sweden (where I had resided for some years) and Norway where they have had parental leave (yes, for fathers too) for many years and this has been embraced by the workforce. Noone holds it against women there, so that fear is baseless - we need to study how they have applied parental leave and apply it to suit our needs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 2:15:02pm
Overseas experience, at least for large organisations, is the increases in skills within the labout force overall with more people in acting roles, learning the next rung up and adding depth to the organisation's skill set.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John D:
18 Nov 2008 4:26:10pm
It's easy to see you don't work in small/medium business. We do not have the luxury to have staff to learn the next rung up.
With maternity leave. We would need to employ a contractor for the period.
Oh we have to pay someone to do the job and maternity leave on top?
What a joke!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tallulah Foxtrot:
18 Nov 2008 2:33:27pm
A workforce comprising only of men would be a freakion" nightmare.
Which is why sanity has prevailed over the decades.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cliff:
18 Nov 2008 3:42:45pm
I think what's backwards these days when business owners complain about employees not taking responsibility for their own actions, when we live in an age of resuce packages, bail-outs and buy-outs. Not to mention where big business has exploited our childcare marked, exposed it to the US system and left parent in a mess.
Business is a nonsense these days. Not understanding the long-term benefit of supporting employees with maternity leave etc is just another example of lack of business foresight and the corporate "poor me" whinger mentality. If you start a business you accept a risk in return for the potential to make a profit. Take some responsibility and stop whinging!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Teigan:
18 Nov 2008 12:10:07pm
Employers should not have an obligation to provide either mothers or fathers with paid parental leave. Employees have a choice as to if they wish to have children, or terminate in the case of accidental pregnancies. If they are not willing to work while pregnant, either don't have a child or find some other form of income.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cablehorn:
18 Nov 2008 12:10:58pm
The loss of childcare places [read collapse of ABC Learning Centres] as of 1 January 2009 will be an interesting factor not mentioned in this proposition.
Another example of our communal eyes wide shut regarding the moral & ethical standards of our financial sector & economy in general.
Regarding our moral & ethical standards, research carried out in 2002 by Dr Kay Margetts of Melbourne University's Education Faculty, "suggests that more than 30 hours a week in childcare centres could harm a child's development."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bezza:
18 Nov 2008 12:18:43pm
I will not contribute to paying for the life styles of people who elect to have children. User Pays is the only reasonable solution. A HECS style system for those who choose to have kids when they really cant afford it is the only fair opption. Why should I pay for somone elses children? We dont need them, the world is not under populated and generally no one is forcing women to have kids.
Having Children is not a nessecity, it's a choice. You Choose, You Pay. I wont. I mean how selfish is it to have kids you cant afford. What a joke.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Michelle:
18 Nov 2008 12:41:05pm
Reply to Bezza and Tag: I argue that it's in everyone's interest that society continues to have children. If they don't - who is going to push your wheelchair and feed you in your nursing home? Who is going to pay taxes to fund our hospitals, schools, roads, etc? Therefore, everyone should be happy to pay [parental leave] so that there will be future tax-payers to pay when you no longer can.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tag:
18 Nov 2008 1:23:59pm
People will have kids regardless. By your logic, we should already be extinct.
The existence of my future wheelchair pusher doesnt require a discriminatory work policy.
Nor does it require employers to pay the cost of somebody else having a child.
Next argument please.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 2:20:04pm
"how selfish is it to have [aged care / medical expenses / etc] you can't afford". A simple application of your argument to a new application.
Try selling that to your post-reproductive generation first, then come back to the debate.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
stevel:
18 Nov 2008 2:38:16pm
Michelle, get real. There is already so much money to be had by popping out kids.
Do you know what an ecological footprint is? Do you know how big yours is? The last thing we need is to pump out babies like you suggest. The planet is already beyond being over burdened.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Garry:
18 Nov 2008 12:52:41pm
No kids = less consumers/consumption = bad for economy.
The advantage for employers are future consumers/workers, and in certain industries short term consumption of baby, children and related goods and services.
Why do you think the ex-Treasurer wanted one for dad, one for mum and another for him. The economy affects us all.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Green:
18 Nov 2008 1:26:06pm
No kids = less consumers/comsumption = fantastic for the environment
There are far more important issues to think about in relation to procreation than simply economic effects.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
18 Nov 2008 2:21:57pm
Of course, the logical conclusion of the 'people is bad for the environment' argument is to top one's self. The ultimate in green morality: suicide. It's only a little faster and more radical than your slow extinction proposal.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Young Marto:
18 Nov 2008 4:19:56pm
Garry, I'm certainly no greenie (I think AGW is a crock), but the 'constant growth' theory cannot work sustainably. This planet can only hold so many people. Have you heard of the 'wheat and chessboard problem'? I suggest you look it up.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
18 Nov 2008 2:09:03pm
You are in the minority, both in Australia and in the world. The proposed 14 weeks paid parental leave is at the lower end of the scale in world terms. Sweden has 16 MONTHS paid leave.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Young Marto:
18 Nov 2008 4:28:50pm
Does that mean the Swedish Government right? What suits one country is not necessarily right for another.
Who are you to say Bezza is in the minority? For all you know, more than half the country agrees with him. Don't try to speak for everyone.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Young Marto:
18 Nov 2008 4:17:16pm
I completely agree with you Bezza. I am tired of paying for the lifestyle choices of other people. Welfare is supposed to be there as just that - not an excuse for families to buy a plasma tv.
I've also had enough of childcare rebates. As a single working Gen Y, I object to constantly having to pay for other people's kids.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
R G Hay:
18 Nov 2008 12:35:19pm
The question, surely, is what provides the best development environment for infants and children under kindergarten age. And that would vary with the qualities of the child/children and the proposed carer/s, and the durations of time spent with them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Nick:
18 Nov 2008 1:15:39pm
Teigan opposes employers paying, while Bezza says, You Choose, You Pay. I wont. I mean how selfish is it to have kids you cant afford. What a joke.
But its not parents who are selfish. Parents who stay home are raising children for the benefit of society as a whole, without remuneration for doing so. And society as a whole should support those in need whether they are parents, children, elderly etc. Gone are the days when we expect a child of 10 to go down the coal mines to earn their keep.
Tag asks, what benefit is having a child to your employer? Why should they pay?
Employers as a group benefit. The raising of children provides a new workforce. Without a workforce, employers cant make a profit. Employers take for granted that there is always a pool of workers ready and willing to take a job workers who have been raised and educated at someone elses expense. And when those workers fall sick or reach retirement age, employers expect other workers to foot the bill through taxes.
Roughly half the countrys GNP is derived from the profits of companies. Yet these companies pay a pitiful amount of tax and always look the other way when it comes to giving workers the help they need to raise a family and care for their members who are sick or elderly.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tag:
18 Nov 2008 2:01:56pm
So how come employers have an educated workforce right now?
Is there a secret paid maternity policy already at work?
Having kids is a personal choice.
They only become a social benefit when they consume goods (which they pay for) or when they provide a service to the economy (which they get paid for).
The social ledger is already balanced.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tallulah Foxtrot:
18 Nov 2008 2:36:48pm
Don't wanna get personal, but dammit, I will .......you must subscribe to the philosophy : Consume, Be Silent , then Die.
Is there anything in your life apart from slavery to so-called economics?
Have you read a book? Listened to any music? If you have children, my advice to yer kids - Divorce your Dad - he will mess with your head -Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tag:
18 Nov 2008 3:37:33pm
Your questions were so personal and unusual, I felt compelled to answer.
I read a lot of books. Probably more in a year then most people will read in a decade.
That is why I have an understanding of social economics. I also have an understanding of capitalism, communism, politics, warfare (both tactical and political) and philosophy.
Having recently graduated from law, I am also interested in legal philosophy and the process of law.
I enjoy listening to all forms of music, from classical to death metal.
I think the term I am looking for is Educated and Well Balanced.
While you, a self confessed hippy, would be perfectly qualified to raise children with a balanced viewpoint.
Assuming you could teach them to look at all sides of an argument, rather then blindly accepting one view.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
rory:
18 Nov 2008 2:51:52pm
I and my small business pay every tax required under the legislation. It is my house which provides the security for the business, I do not benefit from an employee taking time off to have children, it costs me money and adds extra monetry burden onto the business by having to employee casuals. Added to this, when/if the employee returns to work they are entitled to request family friendly/flexible hours which an employer is required to consider. If you provide family friendly/flexible hours then you will more than likely have to keep a caual on to take up the slack. The business is my risk, I stand to lose my house, the employees might lose their jobs if it goes under but they will still have their houses. I know what gender my future employees will be.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Adam:
18 Nov 2008 12:44:15pm
As an employer it would only increase the reasons for not employing women. If the incentive is there, be it by policy or legislation then women will be encouraged to use it, therefor they will disrupt the workflow of the business by creating a viod to fill. Its fine to be explicit about this but to put it practice I think businesses need to compensated in some way. For government agencies to comment on this is allmost futile in the eyes of the business community as they only see government intervention as a greater contraint to there business. The regulatry patterns in this country have made it allmost impossible to make any profit and this will just be more of that.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Christie:
18 Nov 2008 2:34:27pm
Adam - I support paid parental leave for both sexes. However, I don't suppport business funding such leave as I think it is unfair on business and would lead to discrimination against women of child bearing age. I think it should be funded by Government (essentially by taxpayers).
The current Government has said very strongly that they will never mandate a scheme which requires employers to pay for individual women taking maternity leave. Would it make a difference to your position if you were not asked to directly fund this leave?
For the record, I do not and will not have children. I just happen to believe that raising children is a key function of our society and that a large slice of communal funding should be made available for this purpose.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
RB:
18 Nov 2008 12:51:11pm
As a business owner I will be forced to employ males and females over 50. The government should be encouraging business owners to employ staff of any gender.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kenny:
18 Nov 2008 1:01:38pm
Paid maternity leave is not only discriminatory its anti family and implies that all mothers need to work in order to be acceptable, valued members of our society.
We need a policy that truly enables parents to choose to be at home or not with their children. By tying so many benefits to employment we greatly devalue the home parenting role.
Why don't we simply provide a payment to all parents of school age children regardless of their financial, marital or employment situation? The result would be that parents could use these payments to supplement their household income and stay at home, to go to work and pay for child care, to take unpaid maternity or paternity leave. The point is there would be real choice and the role of a parent in the home would be seen as a valuable contribution.
If we cancel all the child care benefits that are linked solely to employment I don't believe it would be all that expensive and even if it was more expensive over all are the next generation our most valuable and important resource?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mark:
18 Nov 2008 1:39:06pm
In most countries, Employers provide paid Maternity leave for upto 6 months.
I believe it is good to do so. Employers are obligated to provide a work life balance to their employees. Have a child, is part and parcel of everyones life. This is how the universe works.
Women need to be given paid maternity leave to look after the new born. I believe they should get this assistance provided they commit to come back to work after the pregnancy.
People saying this as discrimination and taking about not employing women because they will have this extra burden, are the once that are discriminating.
It will actually encourage women to have children, which will be better for the economy and the country, which will inturn help the business sector.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Felix:
18 Nov 2008 1:04:30pm
Just put them in an ABC child care centre and go back to work...................
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Juliet:
18 Nov 2008 1:12:55pm
very curious this modern idea that having children is some sort of selfish lifestyle choice, like going on a holiday or buying a pet. lucky for you your parents didn't think that way hey?
yes babies provide a lot of personal pleasure to their parents, but remember that babies are people and people are valuable for all sorts of reasons.
I think it is time to reconsider and re-design all forms of government child support, not just maternity leave. the current system is ad hoc, unreliable and in many cases just plain unfair. e.g. what about the self-employed? what about paternity leave? what about childcare costs & availability? what about education costs? etc etc. all this goes to the heart of how we should live and grow. very important stuff.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Amanda:
18 Nov 2008 3:10:17pm
At least you are considering the broader picture Juliet. I am no fan of paid maternity leave, but I would be more open to the idea if it was put in a particular context. My big concern is that paid maternity leave could be introduced in the context of a society which is deeply unequal in other regards. Gender isn't the only cause of injustice despite what Pru Goward and co might suggest. Class and socio-economic status are also huge factors, and if we're happy to see the aged, the unemployed, and the disabled get a relative pittance, how can we justify the provision of paid maternity leave to women who, in many instances, are already comfortably off. If you want to focus on the paid maternity leave situation in countries such as Denmark and Norway, you also need to look at their other social security provisions and then draw a comparison. People should stop comparing apples with exotic pineapples.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Daniel:
18 Nov 2008 1:20:47pm
I think we are all missing the bigger picture here that paid maternity/parental leave is an incentive for the skilled and educated members of society to have children.
Its all well and good for Susy Bogan with a grade 9 education and a sense of entitlement to pop out 6 kids to 6 fathers and be "on the Welfare" for life, but Heaven forbid the constructive, valuable members of society should wish to procreate. no way, back to work.
Give it twenty years and we will have a society where the proportion of lower class, unskilled ferals outweighs those of us with the drive to become educated and sucessful because we refused to support their desire to procreate, and instead threw money at dropkicks who shouldn't be having children. Go figure.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
John:
18 Nov 2008 1:24:19pm
I certainly don't think it's the employers responsibility, nor obligation to pay any employee for time spent away from 'their job' just because they decided to have children - people are employed to do work, if they choose to have children, then that is their choice, and their responsibility.
Nor are these baby bonuses a good idea in their current form; I know a couple who have 10 children, live off social security because they are financially better off, and constantly complain about how hard done by they are; they believe the government should pay them more for their choices - I dare say there are others just like them.
And like it or not, the world can't support the population it already has. According to recent reports from both the UN FAO and WWF, the human race's current environmental footprint is so great that we require 2 or more planet Earth's just to meet our current global needs. Unfortunately we don't have another Earth to rape; so each day 80,000 men, women and children die of starvation.
Sooner or later all nations are going to have to introduce some form of sustainable population control; and paying people to have children is not helping them, the children, or the planet.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Juliet:
18 Nov 2008 1:25:36pm
Going back to work is but a dream unless you can get suitable childcare. Government (any level, don't care which) should buy out ABC and run it as a government service in same way that primary school is provided. i don't understand why primary & secondary school are provided by the state but pre-school care & education is not. there are not enough childcare places to go meet demand so parents are being forced to stay home whether they want to or not, whether they have a decent income or not. all this talk of promoting 'choice' is just talk, unless real childcare options are available.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
18 Nov 2008 2:04:12pm
So why have kids if you expect the govt to look after them from such an early age? When would you propose govt care kicks in - when ther baby bonus has been spent?
If you can't afford to have children or aren't prepared to care for them yourself......don't bother.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Daniel:
18 Nov 2008 2:21:19pm
HA!
"expect the govt to look after them" what world are you living in Felix?? It happens everyday with our Centrlink recipients.
"If you can't afford to have children or aren't prepared to care for them yourself...dont bother"
So who can afford to have children and still be able to pay a mortgage?
Why don't you stop shooting off at the mouth (or should I say text) and do a bit of thinking first.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lee:
18 Nov 2008 2:52:33pm
No one forced the couple to take out a mortgage requiring two incomes. It was a choice made by them.
You live with the choices you make.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Daniel:
18 Nov 2008 3:29:34pm
In this day and age ANY mortgage requires two incomes. Move out of home and maybe you'll realise that, until then dont pipe on about "choices".
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lee:
18 Nov 2008 3:45:52pm
No one forces you to take out a mortgage. No one forces you to purchase a house. These are things people have decided (irrelevant how much thought was put into it) for themselves.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Young Marto:
18 Nov 2008 4:35:48pm
Lee someone has to
-
-
-