Getting down to the business of parental leave

Old Clive says:

07:17am | 14/12/10

Good Luck with your last comment,but unfortunately, there are none so blind as those who do want to see, and the ALP is very aware of this and plays on it all the time.

Rosie says:

07:39am | 14/12/10

Sunday it was Swan’s sale pitch on bank reforms, today Macklin’s pittance paid parental leave. Even before we are allowed a chance to dissect their spin we are givien the impression that it is a coup, a historic reform for the Govt and we should take their word for it, give them a big fat tick so they could remain in power because they are a good hard working Govt for the people! NOT!

Who could forget the hype when this Govt was trying to sell the super profits mining tax; “the minieral resources belong to the people of Australia so it is only right for the people to share the profits.” Wow big deal we will get something for free because it belongs to us.”

100% for making everything sound rosey but in reality it doesn’t add up.

“Forwarned is forarmed” once again sounds great for the Govt for their survial but in reality it doesn’t work or makes much of a difference to our well being.

Cloud Strife says:

08:33am | 14/12/10

Carnegie - would you rather have no paid parental leave at all?

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth!

nosthow says:

08:38am | 14/12/10

@Carnegie - hows that “White Australia” immigration policy that you support going Carnegie ! Scotty Morisson driving those Asylum Seekers back into the ocean is he fella ?  hahhhhhhhhhh

mum of one says:

09:04am | 14/12/10

Carnegie, your rant is well written however it is incorrect.  Had you bothered to check your information you would see that the baby bonus is for a total sum of $5,294 which will be paid in 13 equal payments.
The eligable family cut off for this is $75000.  This means that should a couple earn more then this they get not a penny, you will see from the documentation the the paid parental cut off is for an individual adjusted income of $150,000 or less.  This means that those who have contibuted to the economy through higher taxes are actually now eligable for some rebabte.  While i agree this is not quite enough I think you will agree it is a step in the right direction

Ray Graham says:

09:44am | 14/12/10

Rosie, ‘a pittance parental leave’. I think you could star in the new movie ‘Ingratious Bastards’. FFD women are kidding. Ya wrapped in cotton wool and feigned by Governments ad infenitum. This is purely a political sop for women, not fathers, kids or the productive workforce.

Change the name from Maternity Leave to Parental Leave. That’ll fix it for men. Did Macklin and her cohorts have to shred the paperwork originally headed Maternity Leave.

The whole reproductive environment has been hijacked by women. What with Maternity Leave, baby bonus, Family Tax A and B, child care subsidy, and above all the Family Court and Child Support. Spoke to another friend this morning whose son pays $550 a fortnight and sometimes receives nothing from the ‘paymaster’ because of CSA re-calculations and gazumping his money without consultation. Reproduction is an honourable cause, but should not be used as a tool for self engrandishment. It should come naturally and be embraced as a privelege not a right for social support unless really needed.

Meanwhile women get their guaranteed path through life strewn with rose petals. ON return to work after 2 years they then gazump the poor blokes in the office through affirtmative action promotion, with scant regard for those that have carried the can during absence. Then demand quotas for Boards and CEO positions.

Live in a man’s shoes. Be excluded from society. Be the second rate citizen. And above all be the whipping post for National blood sport of discrediting men at every opportunity.

Don’t know how I survived with 3 jobs to survive raising the kids. But now I’m told socially that fathers of my time didn’t want to spend time with the kids. Did anyone ever ask fathers.

Yep, you are right I’ve had a terminal gutful of women with their endless claims of ‘discrimination’ and their endless special case treatment they’ve been able to purloin from society.

This whole concept will be judged poorly in history

Heath Karl says:

10:25am | 14/12/10

“Live in a man’s shoes. Be excluded from society. Be the second rate citizen. “

Ill put money on Ray being divorced. Some terrible woman has hurt this man badly!

Tam says:

10:44am | 14/12/10

Mum of One… the cut off is $75,000 in the 6 months preceding the happy arrival… so the threshhold is effectively the same for both.

Ray says:

10:53am | 14/12/10

Wrong Heath you’ve done ya money, but hey if I was divorced what difference would that make other than your recognition that I would have been ‘done over’. If your name is Heath, not Heather with Heath for short, your day will come. A fool and his money Heath. But you don’t have to be a fool to get done over by the Family Court, merely a dad.

Rosie says:

11:58am | 14/12/10

@ Ray Graham!

Love the term “Ingratious Bastards” but not a role for me because I am old fashion and love the idea of being a kept woman just doing what I possibly can for the well being of my family, managing to supplement to my husband’s income while taking care of the children and the house. My husband appreciated the fact I wanted to give up my career to be his wife and take on what was required of me as his wife and mother to his children and I appreciated the fact that he was the main income earner being in charge of our well being. Not once did I feel I was giving up my independence because I gave up my career. He knew that if I felt that way I would leave. Life was great then and even greater now that hubby has retired!

You see, it is my children that are today’s “Ingratious Bastards” when it comes to “handouts” from the Govt because they will find Macklin’s paid parental leave a pittance, bank reforms means nothing to them etc.

We look after our grandkids for our daughter while she gets paid good money to do a high profile job. She didn’t believe in paid parental leave until I mentioned to her that both parents of the new born should be home for at least 4 weeks in which to BOND with their baby and therefore the one that is being paid the higher income to a certain amount should receive 4 weeks of pay as mortgages, school fees etc still has to be paid. In most cases it would be the Dad’s income so for that reason I felt the Libs scheme was a better and fairer scheme if it was going to be introduced. Off course it needed tweaking.

My daughter is a single parent but is financially capable of taking care of her children because of the well paid job she has. Mind you she works hard and cannot do it without our help.

I totally agree with you that any Govt and Society should in the 21st century provide for both sex, inspiration, practical skills to bring about positive changes for all our lives and the world. This is how it should be when men or women are talking in presentations, groups, panels, performaces and workshops. It should not be just engaging in long standing traditional “women’s stuff for the modern women.” It should be what is good for the female goose is good for the male gander.

I do feel for you as my daughter is discriminated by the soccer mums because of her job, has to work in a “boy’s club” etc! She is not affected by these negatives because she knows she is repected by those that really matter to her, her male boss for one.

jess says:

04:25pm | 14/12/10

The baby bonus is $5,294, not $7000. Do you know how many nappies or months of electricity an extra $1500 can buy?

Scot says:

06:43pm | 14/12/10

Another monumental stuff up by the Labor party and the 16 years of NSW Labor. Lies deceit and a failed party. The Deputy PM of Australia is Bob brown of the Greens. Labor was not voted into power they licked the boots of Labor to crawl back into power. And what is Macklin doing about this one : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/serious-delays-stymie-remote-housing-scheme/story-e6frg6nf-1225969194729 Indigenous affairs is a mess and why not, it is Labor. Maybe Macklin should go back to Asia and learn how they look after their own? She did not when she was in Hong Kong, like Rudd a failed foreign affairs posting. More money wasted like the BER, ETS, New mining tax, New Carbon Tax. Lets just say new taxes on everything?

Sandra says:

08:41pm | 14/12/10

“Live in a man’s shoes. Be excluded from society. Be the second rate citizen. “

Ray, I agree with you. But let’s be clear; not all women benefit from this because not all women are mothers.

This is the 21st century Harvester Decision, where anyone who breeds is paid more for less work.

Extra info says:

08:58pm | 14/12/10

It can be closer to $7000 depending on your circumstances because you are eligible for Family Part A and B with the baby bonus but not while you are receiving the paid parental leave.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

10:08pm | 15/12/10

nosthow White Australia Policy introduced by LABOR! ! !

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

10:12pm | 15/12/10

Mum of one just think about it if you sit on your @rse & collect the baby bonus you get a little less for NO EFFORT & you don’t pay tax like you would if you take the leave, after tax the difference would be 9 tenths of stuff all.

mum of one says:

09:08am | 14/12/10

If you read the documentation you will see that if a woman has been in continuious work for 12 months prior to giving birth she is entitled to paid parental leave.  If this person has not been employed by the same company for this amount of time 9either a contractor, temp or simply someone who bounces from job to job) then they will be paid by the g’ment.  If the parent has NOT worked for a full 12 months prior to the birth of their child then they are NOT eligable for paid parental leave.  They are however entitled to the baby bonus.  Is it really that hard to find out the information before jumping to conclusions?

Ish says:

09:16am | 14/12/10

It’s one or the other. Baby bonus is also paid in fortnightly instalments. It’s a lesser amount but it is not taxed. PPL is taxed.

s m says:

09:48am | 14/12/10

You can only get one or the other.  If you opt to get PPL, you can’t also get the baby bonus.

Nafe says:

10:38am | 14/12/10

Mum of one, you are incorrect. All the mother has to do is work for 10 months of the previous 13, meaning they could have been between jobs of no more than an 8 week period but could be out of work for a total of 13 weeks in the 13 months prior

Heath Karl says:

09:04am | 14/12/10

You were someones child. Are you a lifestyle choice?

Macca says:

09:50am | 14/12/10

@Joan, does that include the life choice of receiving formal education, using transport or using public places for physical and social activities?

AliceC says:

10:44am | 14/12/10

@Joan

What about people drinking alcohol? That’s a lifestyle choice that costs the taxpayer millions.

Ashlee says:

11:25am | 14/12/10

If you’re lifestyle choices ever put you in hospital - I hope you pay every cent out of your own pocket. Stick of the tax payer rant. You pay for a range of things, as do many people who decide to have kids. I’ve been paying tax since I started working when I was 16 and I will take anything I’m eligible for - I mean, why not? I helped contribute over the years towards it.

But seriously, get over it. Your tax pays for a multitude of things.

fit-mama says:

11:49am | 14/12/10

If thats your attidude then you’ll be fine with us “breeders” cutting you off from medicare, pensions, etc when you retire - retirement is a life style choice - I dont want my child to have to grow up paying taxes to support people like you!  Either that, or we could rely solely on immigration to sustain our population - hello cultural wasteland!

Macka says:

12:13pm | 14/12/10

That’s right AliceC, it does include Alcohol as well as the recently implemented Nicabate refund scheme.

If you can’t afford to have children, don’t, it’s that easy. It’s not everyone’s god given right to have children, and in fact we would be far better off as a society if a lot of people didn’t. But just like if you drink or smoke, it’s your obligation to pick up the tab when it goes wrong, not the taxpayer.

In saying that, I do support a parental leave scheme (parental, not maternity!), just not this one. It’s a terrible half arsed attempt to gain uneducated votes. Then again it comes from a terrible half arsed politician in Jenny Macklin, so why am I not surprised!?

Observer says:

08:55pm | 14/12/10

“But seriously, get over it. Your tax pays for a multitude of things.”

Get over it? Yeah, when you have nothing to offer in the way of an argument the old “get over it” will suffice.

Taxes should pay for things for which the whole community benefits such as defence and public order, telecommunications infrastructure, hospitals, ports and schools. Taxes are NOT intended for a private wad of cash directly handed to some over-burdened yuppy who wants to have their baby and eat out too. Fam Tax B is the third most expensive social policy item in the budget.  Much of it goes to families that are not poor and have no special needs—oh except the “need” to have overseas holidays and I-pods for each child, I suppose.

I always thought that welfare was about need, not greed. The real truth is that most people these days keep themselves dissatisfied with their income by always comparing themselves with people who have more and never with people who have less who they rarely see up close.

The middle-class child-burdened seem to expect to have a zero-sum impact after they have reproduced; they want to continue living like the DINKs next door and they expect the working childless to pay for it.

The bottom line is that despite all of the endless hand-wringing and angst about the state of the nation’s children, assistance isn’t being directed toward kids at the greatest risk. It’s a greed-driven charade designed by and for the comfortably well-off middle-class child-makers who aren’t thrilled with the consequences of their own choices and are irate at the financial impact that children have on them after having lived as DINKS – and who, after decades of funding welfare for the poor, no matter how parsimonious, are demanding theirs.

generally right says:

09:11am | 14/12/10

Um thats called descrimination and is in violation of the australian constitution but feel free to stock your workforce full of single infertile males (as men are eligable for paid parental leave too) and the middle aged.  Your a smart one aren’t you!!

bec says:

09:21am | 14/12/10

I wish my taxes didn’t go into propping up negative gearing on existing properties. Somehow, residential investment isn’t a lifestyle choice in the same way that a biological imperative like having children is…

Andy says:

10:31am | 14/12/10

Producing new tax-payers is an economic necessity.

The future taxes the children will pay will provide the roads, health system, defence force, infrastructure, etc, etc, that will be used by all the retired taxpayers whether they had children or not. So it is not unreasonable that a small part of the financial burden of child rearing be spread across the tax base.

“Its time people stood on their own two feet and accepted responsibility for their own actions without the Tax payer having once again to shell out good money to these people.”

And you shouldn’t expect ‘these peoples’ children to shell out good money for you when you retire.

Tim says:

11:37am | 14/12/10

Andy,
so what you’re saying is this is the first generation to not only have to fund old people’s pensions but also the next generation’s upbringing.

Can I stop paying the part of my tax bill that goes to old age pensions because “I shouldn’t expect ‘these peoples’ children to shell out good money for you when you retire. “????

And Bec,
Biological imperative? I thought we’d evolved above other animals and had the capacity to think and make decisions for ourselves.

The sense of entitlement among parents these days that everyone else should pay for their children is breathtaking.

Macka says:

12:47pm | 14/12/10

Sorry Bec,

Explain to me again how your taxes prop up my negative gearing?

The net effect of negative gearing is a reduction in Income Tax Revenue for the Commonwealth, not a direct levy or cost to the taxpayer. This was introduced in 1985 by the Hawke/Keating government in order to encourage an increase in home ownership and ultimately ‘Supply’. In the last financial year this accounted for approximately 5-6bn in tax revenue, versus the 75bn in wasted spending by the Labor government.

If I could propose something to you, that without negative gearing we would have a far worse house shortage in Australia than there currently is, which may have resulted in even higher house prices and rents. This is Economics 101 - Supply vs Demand.

It amazes me that people complain about something simply because they don’t have the capability or smarts to do it.

Andy says:

01:26pm | 14/12/10

@ Tim

The revenue from taxation is spent on expenditure in the year it is collected, as soon as you stop paying tax, i.e. retire, you become a burden on the other tax payers who will be funding the infrastructure and services you still use.

The cost of child rearing is enormous and if you choose not to have a child you will be hundreds of thousands of dollars better off over your lifetime than someone who does, although you will be equally relying on the next generation to maintain infrastructure and services you will need.

The government support most parents receive is very little, so stop whining and remember if you choose not to replace yourself as a tax payer you will be a economic freeloader when you stop paying tax.

Farmer says:

02:35pm | 14/12/10

Couldn’t agree more - it seems that every time an “adult” gives birth these days, they consider themselves to be heroes. Strangely enough, this giving birth idea is not a new one.

Thanks to the introduction of making every Australian responsible for my daughter’s new baby, she no longer has a job. Her contract was up for renewal at the end of January, her baby was born in October so she took maternity leave 4 days prior to giving birth. In her absence, her position has been advertised. She was contacted by her supervisor and invited (encouraged is too strong) to apply for this position under the assumption that she wouldn’t be returning to work.

Needless to say, she didn’t get the job. The same job she has been doing for the past six years. Apparently she wasn’t enthusiastic enough at the interview - not “she wasn’t talented / skilled / presentable / efficient / etc etc”.

Does this situation suggest that she was going to be too expensive to keep? I think so. They don’t qualify for the baby bonus on the basis that she worked for too long; if she had finished earlier it would have reflected in the 6 months combined income earned prior to the baby’s arrival. Now, of course, she doesn’t qualify for the PPL either. Is she bitter? No, not about the money. Angry about the loss of her position, yes. Because she is of “breeding” age, she has been discriminated against. So, Ms Macklin, think again about your vote buying, feel-good plan to spread more Govt dollars around. Unlike the majority of ALP members, my children actually want to work and earn their own way. They also want to have a family before the new average breeding age of 40. She is only 28 with enough energy, love and ambition to do what many of us have done before her.

Tim says:

04:36pm | 14/12/10

Andy,
I’ll ask you again then, can I stop paying the part of my tax that is funding pensions and old age care for the present elder generation??
Why do you think it’s fair that the current generation pays for the last generation’ pensions and the next genereration’s upbringing?
And as for people like myself ever becoming a drain on the system, unfortunately I will never stop paying large amount of tax due to the large amounts of savings I will have invested in superannuation and elsewhere.

Sandra says:

08:35pm | 14/12/10

“Um thats [sic] called descrimination [sic] and is in violation of the
australian [sic] constitution [sic].”

Bahahahahaha! Pray tell exactly *where* does the Australian Constitution mention, let alone outlaw, discrimination ?

“Your [sic] a smart one aren’t you [sic]”

The irony of a triumphant witty retort from someone so clueless! Surely this one’s a troll?

“biological imperative like having children is…”

If is it a biological imperative then a cash incentive is not justified.

“So it is not unreasonable that a small part of the financial burden of child
rearing be spread across the tax base.”

Correct. So if children are a social good (and there is a great deal of debate on that alone) then any assistance from the government purse for children ought to be socialised in the form of social welfare such as subsidised education, health and so on. Parents should be able to access social services aimed directly at their children’s welfare or to make them better parents. A reasonable person cannot see that social wealth is of long term benefit to society.

Incongruously, the childmaking lobbyists insist on private cash handouts to spend as they please, to pay their mortgage or to maintain their consumption. 

Of course, its true that childless people don’t bear the (private) costs of children. Equally though, they don’t obtain the benefits of parenthood.

Children are, for the large part, private goods therefore parents must consider the opportunity costs. Sadly, in this middle-class aspirant post-Howard society, the childed expect to maintain their prenatal consumption patterns. And it seems that a side effect of this is to impose a perverse noblesse oblige on the childfree.

“The sense of entitlement among parents these days that everyone else should pay for their children is breathtaking.”

Yes. Somehow there’s this twisted perception among some parents that the childfree enjoy some kind of undeserved benefit and by forcing the childfree to make sacrifices in their own lives —be it in the workplace or regressive cross-subsidisation— is the best means to address this imagined inequity.

It is the politics of envy writ large.

Sandra says:

09:17pm | 14/12/10

“The cost of child rearing is enormous and if you choose not to have a child you will be hundreds of thousands of dollars better off over your lifetime than someone who does”

And if I choose to never take up a heroin habit I will be also be much better off than someone who does.

It is disingenuous at best to suggest that the childless enjoy some undeserved benefit and so translates into an inequity.

See, one who chooses to parent enjoys the private benefits of children that the childless do not access.  As a parent, Andy, you should be happy about the joy that your children bring and be able to look past the material wealth you have missed.

But no.

But it all boils down to money dunnit? Oh woe is me, I have less money than a childless person, it’s not fair that they dodged the bullet. Wahwahwahwah! 

These discussions are never spared that select group of entitlement-poisoned parents bleating about how expensive their children have become and trotting out the predictable “my-children-are-the-taxpayers-of-the- future- (who-will-wipe-your-a***-in-the-oldies’-home)” . Parents, it is time for a new shtick in place of the faux altriusm meme; you did not have children with mine or the nation’s future in mind.

If you are angered that you have “lost” money by choosing to have children then I only hope that you do not take out your bitterness on your kids. They did not ask to be born.

Andy says:

02:01pm | 16/12/10

@ Sandra

I give very little thought to the cost of child rearing, only when I am defending my decision to become a parent from holier than thou non-parents who think that people choose to have children for the tax deductions (I bet you are a huge fan of A Current Affair).

Whether you like it or not renewal is an essential part of any society and you WILL be relying on the next generation to maintain the standard of living you are used to.

So get over yourself. In a society such as Australia the contributions you make through taxation will not always directly benefit you immediately, but will benefit the society as a whole and you indirectly.
Once you realize this you may become a little less bitter.

Sandra says:

10:52am | 17/12/10

@ Andy

“holier than thou non-parents who think that people choose to have children for the tax deductions (I bet you are a huge fan of A Current Affair)...In a society such as Australia the contributions you make through taxation will not always directly benefit you immediately, but will benefit the society as a whole and you indirectly.”

Strawman and the implied insult? Gee, that is a new tactic. Nup. You are not a holier-than-thou parent. Oh no.

I’d warrant that you never graduated from primary school given that you did not read my comment: Parents should be able to access social services aimed directly at their children’s welfare or to make them better parents. A reasonable person cannot see that social wealth is of long term benefit to society.

So I am more than happy to pay for roads, infrastructure, defence and public order—even your children’s health and education.  I did say “benefits for children”. What is obscene is the size of private cash transfers from the childless, no matter how poor, to parents, no matter how wealthy because modern parents seem to want to maintain their pre-natal consumption of adult goods. 

“Once you realize this you may become a little less bitter.”

Me bitter?  For someone who claims to “not think about the costs of children”, it is all you have whined about. “The cost of child rearing is enormous” or that the chidless have dodged the cost bullet. It is all about money to you.

Andy, you did not choose to have children with the sole intention of benefiting me or the nation. And as for the intimation that your kids will be ministering to me in my dotage, be assured that I have already taken care of my retirement, so you can rest easy now as I know it has been keeping you awake at night.

If you find parenting is so awful, then don’t do it, no-one is forcing you. Having children is a choice. You’ve made your bed. You already do get more than enough from government but clearly it appears that you want a zero-sum impact on your lifestyle and you assert that someone, anyone but you should foot the bill.

It is YOU who really need to get over yourself and your faux altruism. You chose to have children. Don’t you dare insist that you are performing a social service for which the childless ought to be grateful.

Andy says:

07:47pm | 17/12/10

“Me bitter?  For someone who claims to “not think about the costs of children”, it is all you have whined about. “The cost of child rearing is enormous” or that the chidless have dodged the cost bullet. It is all about money to you.”

Read the original post! we’re not here to talk about the weather”.

“Andy, you did not choose to have children with the sole intention of benefiting me or the nation. And as for the intimation that your kids will be ministering to me in my dotage, be assured that I have already taken care of my retirement, so you can rest easy now as I know it has been keeping you awake at night.”

And thats where you are wrong Sandra, The retirement savings will only benefit the economy through your personal spending, you will no longer be contributing through taxation, as I said above:

The revenue from taxation is spent on expenditure in the year it is collected, as soon as you stop paying tax, i.e. retire, you become a burden on the other tax payers who will be funding the infrastructure and services you still use.” (the next generation)

“If you find parenting is so awful, then don’t do it, no-one is forcing you. Having children is a choice. You’ve made your bed. You already do get more than enough from government but clearly it appears that you want a zero-sum impact on your lifestyle and you assert that someone, anyone but you should foot the bill.”

Please don’t verbal me, I do not find parenting awful, nor do expect it to have a zero sum impact on my lifestyle or say I parenthood is an altruistic act.
And unlike you, I also don’t think children are private good, or make good analogies for heroin addiction.

You are misinformed if you think having a family is the key to a welfare bonanza, families that earn more than $75k get very little tax concessions and rebates, about as much as you would get from owning a negatively geared investment property.

You should also consider that the rebates are on taxes that are paid by the family.

If you are concerned that payments such as the baby bonus are being spent on LCD TV’s, you should be happy that the funds are being redirected into the PPL.

Sandra says:

01:43pm | 19/12/10

Andy, if children are not a private good, then feel free to send the little one ‘round to mow my lawn, won’t you?

“If you are concerned that payments such as the baby bonus are being spent on LCD TV’s, you should be happy that the funds are being redirected into the PPL”

What? What will stop PPL being spent on consumer goods? PPL is no different from the baby bonus in that it is still a wad of cash given to parents to spend as they like.  Just because people are working parents does not mean that they are automatically imbued perfect moral compass.

The Baby Bonus and the now paid PPL is like giving $5000 to $10000 to 1000 school children to spend as they like, rather than giving $10,000,000 to a school.

Children do not strip wealth. That people switch expenditure from other goods and services to child-related goods and services does not mean that their utility declines. Based on a utility maximising framework, an alternative and intuitively appealing method of estimating the cost of children is proposed: if children are a ‘cost’ then couples who have children should end up with lower net wealth than comparable couples without children or with fewer children. But the research shows otherwise. The wealth of parents does not decline after having a child.

Take the glass half full approach. It can be assumed that if the birth of a child is the result of a voluntary choice by the parents, parental well being is increased by having that child–that is, increased by more than the loss in adult welfare caused by the resulting reduction in adult expenditures.

In other words, parents are benefited by children. Any additional private money given to parents IS a welfare bonanza.

Heath Karl says:

09:15am | 14/12/10

Does anyone else get the feeling that Labor is the Yang to the Liberal Ying? That they really need each other, they compliment each other. Meanwhile the rest of us think they are both bloody useless and resent having to chose between two parties that are only supported by unthinking drones.

Paul says:

09:39am | 14/12/10

Please give me 1, just 1, good reason why bad policy shouldnt be blocked and wrecked?

Lemonacid says:

09:42am | 14/12/10

I’ll take that roster over the alternative…

Mon: Allow rubbish policies
Tue:  Agree with stupid decisions
Wed:  Permit obscene waste of money
Thu:  Don’t hold policies to account
Fri: Give Labor free ride

Tombowler says:

10:58am | 14/12/10

Hows this for Julia’s Schedule

Mon: Create quick political distraction to avoid fallout from recent disastrous policy outcomes

Tue: Policy is grilled by ABC reporter/opposition: Shit we’ve got nothing beyond a name.  Lie and use the term ‘wrecker’

Wed: Consider blaming mess on Fitzgibbon despite lack of any input at all from fitzgibbon.  Nup..maybe Garret? Yeah we’ll blame it on garret.. He’s pretty much f#$ed anyway…  Wait! it the party pollster said that the initiative is polling well in various low-socio-economic suburb. Jules will run with it after all.

Thur: Shouldn’t have run with it. RBA, economists, Ken Henry, Head of State of nation that we claimed to have an arrangement with all tell us we are f$%#ing idiots. Nasally respond to all criticisms with ‘I just want to get on with the job of governing’. F#$: Keanally called: ICAC caught another F#$%^ing NSW MP stealing sh#t…. Suppose you can’t blame them for trying to feather their nests a little before the inevitable blood-let

Friday: Blame it on the “Howard Govt” until new politcal distraction can be found. Consoled by the fact that @nostnow will endless spout whatever bullshit you feed the electorate as though it is gospel. Phone call from Swann: ..... installing pink bats in schools in indonesia… How much?,,, $45bn? Yep. Lets do it…. Business plan?.... F#ck that! What are you? Some sort of luddite?

nosthow says:

11:57am | 14/12/10

@Tombowler - calm down young Tommy - you never see nosthow swearing - you had me blushing fella ! I understand the pain you are going through what with Tones pulling the wool over your eyes and pretending to be a winner whens hes a loser ! Fully understood fella. Hang in there your Messiah is probably only 6-9 years off !  hahhahahhhhhhhh

Rosie says:

01:46pm | 14/12/10

@ Heath Karl - nothing worse than to hear commentators dragging in the Opposition to use as an excuse for a political party that haven’t a clue how to govern.

Even, nosthow with his diatribe defense is better, at least we know he can’t bear to live with the fact that his preference in the Gillard Labor Party is fast becoming a no and stand for nothing Govt trying desperately to survive.

Ryan says:

01:47pm | 14/12/10

How is it that you guys give this surf lifesaving hating dropkick the time of day at all.

nosthow says:

02:41pm | 14/12/10

@Ryan - I am deeply upset Ryan my old buddy - noshow is a sensitive chap you know - very easily upset- a SNAG as Nicole tells me. Now I know you love the budgie smuggler kid Ryan and there is nothing wrong with that fella. Do you wear budgie smugglers Ryan !  hahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Pete says:

12:05pm | 14/12/10

You do realise that Tony Abbot’s paid parental leave policy was a whole lot more generous don’t you?  So please, tell me where the ALP, and only the ALP, stuffed up.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s a bit of a rort.  I think the only guarantee should be that you can have time off and have your job back afterward.  Smart employers will fight between themselves to offer other benefits in order to retain valued employees.

Anthony of WA says:

10:54pm | 14/12/10

We could not afford Abbotts scheme either, besides he is not running the country, but I am sure it would not have been totally mismanaged like everything the ALP tries it’s hand at.
Mate if you can not see all the labor stuff ups having me pointing them out would be a waste of my time

Pete says:

07:48am | 15/12/10

Anthony.  Look, nowhere in my post do I even suggest that there have been no Labor stuff ups.  You are also making a large assumption that I vote Labor.  All I did was point out that that your original five word post was a bit, well, partisan.

Ish says:

09:18am | 14/12/10

The leave can be split between parents. But as an expectant mum I will be taking the leave rathern than my husband as I want to breast feed for as long as possible.

bec says:

09:23am | 14/12/10

Yep. If we make it an “I am Spartacus” situation and extend the same amount of paid leave to fathers things *will* improve - including the pet topic of MRAs, equality in custody and child support payments.

Al says:

09:37am | 14/12/10

Perhaps you should check what you are talking about.
Employers ARE obliged to give parental leave to fathers if requested. 1 week at the time of birth and up to 12mths unpaid if they are the primary carer (i.e. Mum works, Dad gets Parental Leave). It is set down in legislation.
Couples ARE able to split the parental leave between them.  It is ALSO set down in legislation.

“Why, in this day and age, can’t child care be split between parents? ” Simple, because many couples (and men) choose to maintain the salary of the higher wage earner. This does not mean they CAN’T do it, just that they CHOOSE NOT TO.

Cloud Strife says:

11:42am | 14/12/10

My sister just had a baby, and took six months parental leave. She is going back to work soon, and the father will stay at home until bub is ready to go to school. They CHOSE to do this because Sister needs to breastfeed the baby and has a significantly higher paying job.

Does that sound unfair to both parents?

zoe says:

02:10pm | 14/12/10

Alex you cannot escape biology 101.  Mum is the one to have the baby (her body needs to recover) and Mum is the only one who can breastfeed.  Why do people not get this?

s m says:

09:57am | 14/12/10

Yes.

As one of those awful one-in-five mothers who resigned from work rather than take leave when my first child was born, I’d love to see some sort of scheme that allowed a parent to take extended time out of the work place (unpaid - I don’t expect anyone else to foot the bill for me to raise my kids!!!), but then some form of assistance to help them back into the workforce down the track. 
I’m fortunate in that, as a trained teacher, the Queensland College of Teachers has now established such a scheme.  If ever I decide to return to work, I can complete their course and be registered as a teacher again.

Old Clive says:

09:33am | 14/12/10

Quite a few of us old people realised this when Whitlam wanted to put us in debt to Khemlani way back in a different world. A lot of us have never voted for the Australian Lying Party since then, but unfortunately there are a lot of people who can’t see through the spin. It would be interesting to know where this Government is borrowing all the money from and what commissions are involved.

Heath Karl says:

10:06am | 14/12/10

Quite a few of us can see through the spin of both political parties and detest having to chose between the two.

Nafe says:

10:46am | 14/12/10

No it doesn’t because if you adopt, you also qualify for the paid parental leave scheme.

Heath Karl says:

09:08am | 14/12/10

Voting Liberal will solve none of the workingmans problems. It will, like voting Labor, only make it worse.

Only fools try and substitute a Labor monkey politican with a Liberal monkey politican. When will people realise they are as bad as each other.

John says:

09:18am | 14/12/10

If you pop out 1 every 2 years then you get a whole year off work after popping 3.

Fornication just became a whole lot more rewarding. What a joke. You can’t expect this country’s businesses to survive and many will simply close down over time.

Ish says:

09:26am | 14/12/10

And parents don’t work and pay taxes? We have a two income family we pay our fair share of taxes, yes we get some back but we definitely pay more than we receive. You and I also pay taxes for pensions for the aged and the disabled and government housing and other services we will never use. Tax money is for the community as a whole. Get over yourself and your what’s in it for me mentality.

Anna C says:

10:30am | 14/12/10

Actually Ish, according to David Uren, Economics Correspondent for the “The Australian” newspaper, “Almost 40 per cent of families receive more in welfare payments than they pay in tax, challenging claims the lowpaid have been unfairly treated by the tax system….”  This means they pay zero net tax.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:32am | 14/12/10

@ Ish- “Taxpayer money is for the community” Then why I am I paying for a lifestyle, personal choice? If it is a question of increasing population for the good of the nation we can simply import mature adults through immigration and save on maternity places, government subsidies on child care, education etc. “Get over yourself and your what’s in it for me mentality” I could say the same thing right back at the recipients of the middle class welfare mentality. Paid Parental Leave is not a public good but a private good. Get off my back as I protest what is the legalised transfer of wealth from singles and childless couples to the pockets of parents. We pay taxes for the good of the community, not to maintain the lifestyle choices of middle class families.

Andy says:

11:16am | 14/12/10

Ban childbirth to save on education and maternity expenses and import adult taxpayers to fill the revenue hole.

Great idea shane!  you should run for public office.

Stop wasting your education, it costs us money! says:

12:10pm | 14/12/10

If everyone had your attitude then the economy would stop pretty quickly you idiot. The difficult part for you would be in looking past the end of your nose to understand how your attitude would affect our society.

If we do not support couples having children, who would pay for your retirement?......superannuation? Without enough of the next generation coming through who will drive economic growth? Without economic growth super returns would go down the toilet. There would be an overs supply of housing..pop goes that bubble.

Do you understand that for the company you work for to expand it must INVEST (that means money) and expand (add to) it’s work force (people). For a society to grow the same things need to happen.
Immigration fills some of the role of growing our population but if you wish to maintain our values we need to populate from within.

Maybe your aim to remain childless will be a blessing to the gene pool.

Ish says:

12:12pm | 14/12/10

@ Anna C…contrary wise that means more than 60 per cent of families are paying more taxes than they receive in benefits. So I don’t understand your point.

@ Shane so do you also think puplic schooling should be scrapped?Immunisation programs for kids? The majority of kids will end up being tax payers as well and produce more tax payers and they will fud the roads you drive on the infrastructure you use, staff the hospital and nursing home you end up in when you are a grumpy old retiree. And really you think that funding immigrants and their families will be more cost effective than encouraging working couples to have kids?

Tim says:

12:46pm | 14/12/10

Ish,
yes and everyone else pays taxes too. Except we don’t get any of it back. The fact that over 40% of families pay no net tax shows what a rort family payments and the like are. Pure middle class welfare.
If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.
This argument that parents choose to have children for some kind of public good is ridiculous. It’s a personal choice.
I’ve never seen a couple come out and say that they were having children to pay for roads in the future or look after the current generation in their retirement. The argument is bulls@it.

These kinds of schemes are simply aimed to transfer wealth from singles and childless couples, distributing it to families so their pre baby lifestyle doesn’t have to change too much.

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:24pm | 14/12/10

Hate to tell you this but population growth does not necessarily equate to future taxpayers. If the jobs aren’t there in the future, then then the jobs aren’t there. In fact a high population in times of high unemployment is a big drain on the economy. But hey don’t let a little thing like that get in the way of your heist….

Sandra says:

09:00pm | 14/12/10

“Tax money is for the community as a whole.”

Yes Ish. So that money should be spent on the * community* and those who need it most, not *private cash* handouts to wealthy parents who want to maintain their mortgage repayments and pre-baby consumption patterns.

Sandra says:

01:50pm | 19/12/10

@ Andy
“Ban childbirth to save on education and maternity expenses and import adult taxpayers to fill the revenue hole.”

Strawman, Andy. You are good at that, aren’t you. Nowhere did I see Shane say that he wanted people to stop having children. He just clearly pointed out that taxes ought to be spend on the community—yanno, the society in which we live—instead of buying votes from a bunch of greedy, smug people who think that their personal choices give them a whopping sense of entitlement.

Like ‘mortgage stress’, so-called ‘cost of living’ pressures are mainly self-inflicted and reflect household consumption and lifestyle choices. But voters don’t want to be told that. They want to be told governments will subsidise their high-consumption lifestyles and efforts to keep up with their neighbours.

Sandra says:

08:50pm | 14/12/10

Pete, that parental leave scheme was just another tax. Both Abbott and Sharman Stone conceded in separate interviews with Fran Kelly that the Australian taxpayer would pick up the tab.

It is a regressive scheme where the poor, working and lower middle-class childless would cross-subsidise wealthy households with children. But then, that would appeal to smug Lib voters, wouldn’t it?

Bilby says:

03:34pm | 14/12/10

I totally agree. Paid leave… what a joke.

Once upon a time a man was paid a living wage paid for by paying women less. Once upon a time there was no need for maternity leave because women simply left the workforce when they had kids. Once upon a time there was no such thing as paid leave of any kind, no annual leave, no sick leave, no nothing. We may not have things perfected but they’re better than they were.

Observer says:

12:46am | 17/12/10

“the illusion of being progressive in a nation that is so far behind most of the developed world it’s a joke.”

I call BS. Australia’s cash handouts to families with children (as a proportion of GDP) are the second highest in the world.

“Someone like myself is offered minimum wage (which certainly wouldn’t pay most peoples mortgages)”

Oh poor you! There are people in the world who do not even have a home, let alone a mortgage and yet you whine about being given FREE money, more money than someone on the age pension.

You have chosen to take out a mortgage, your husband has chosen to study. These investments for now will reward you with wealth that most Australians do not enjoy and yet you have the gall to complain that a very generous taxpayer-funded holiday for 18 weeks for your baby-making hobby is not enough?

When did Australian parents become so frikken entitled?

Lila says:

09:23pm | 17/12/10

Observer, so not observant, I don’t have a mortgage and won’t be taking “paid” maternity leave. My point is that the amount is a joke and just serves to make people like you even more self righteous and play the us versus them game. As for the money being free I pay tax so how exactly is that tax being channeled back free?
As for being homeless have been there done that as I am sure you haven’t.
As for being entitled it’s good to see you being entitled to being a judgmental tool who I’m sure is happy when the tacos come back to them.