Prev
Next

How women of child-bearing age became political footballs

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

04 Aug 05:50am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Election 2010, Maternity Leave, Motherhood, Parenting, Politics, Welfare

52 comments

Update 11.30am: Julia Gillard has been tinkering again. Read about it here.

Back in June 2004 I interviewed the director of obstetrics at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred hospital, who said women due to have labor induced in the last week of June for medical reasons were begging their doctors to delay until at least July 1.

Lots of babies… Picture: Ella Pellegrini

It’s a weird thing to do, but the tantalising prospect of the then-$3000 Baby Bonus stood on the other side of the end of the month. John Howard might have announced the Baby Bonus in the May Budget, but instead of starting it that day delayed until the beginning of the financial year, turning it into a biological lottery.

“We would always suggest that the baby comes first,” Dr Andrew Child warned prospective mothers. “It is not worth $3000 to put your baby’s whole life at risk.’’ Thus started a run of uncertainty, competitiveness and anxiety for women and their partners planning a family, as successive leaders have played financial politics with their reproductive systems. There’s no end in sight.

Federal Budget night has become a kind of tense game of roulette as women who are planning children or are pregnant wait to see if they hit the jackpot or wipe out.

In the early post-2004 years July 1 continued to be an auspicious date for the birth of a baby as flush with cash and encouraging us to have “one for mum, one for dad and one for your country” Peter Costello implemented a series of large increases in the dollar value of the Baby Bonus.

One day wrong and you could miss out on on thousands of dollars.

Then Kevin Rudd came to power, and in his Government’s first Budget slapped a means test on the Baby Bonus, which had been derided by many as “middle class welfare”.

I watched in the lock-up that night as a couple of pregnant journalists quickly calculated if they’d scrape in before the means test started and either celebrated or cursed.

Enter Health Minister Nicola Roxon, who set about slashing the safety net rebate on obstetrics and IVF. More uncertainty and anxiety heaped on people who could probably have done without more uncertainty and anxiety.

Then a bright light on the horizon came in the form of the Government’s paid parental leave scheme.

Due to start on January 1, 2011 (another program with an arbitrary start date that will put enormous pressure on some women due to give birth in December) it will provide 18 weeks at the minimum wage - no poke in the eye.

Then along comes Tony Abbott, who wants to pay women six months at their full salary to stay home with baby. Bingo! Except that he keeps changing the details.

First he changed his mind last week about what men would be paid if they took the leave (the mother’s salary). Now he’s delayed the implementation until July 1, 2012.

I wonder what pressure maternity wards around the country will come under in June 2012 if the Coalition were to win the election.

It’s enough to drive a whole generation of Australian mothers around the bend.

I recently heard Tony Abbott say he’d listened to the strong message from small business owners that they’d had enough of changes to the industrial relations system and even if things weren’t perfect now, they’d like a few years of certainty thank-you-very-much.

Women of child-bearing age, however, have been afforded no such respect and continue to be pushed and pulled by both sides in the name of politics.

When will it end?

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

52 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Reg says:

      07:37am | 04/08/10

      Well that puts a cap on “standing up for families.” The money obviously is more important. And what’s the matter with the neat and tidy JH initiating his own invasion on the 1st of the month, Teutonic efficiency at its best. See now Tony has bent to office procedure as well. Babies not born on the 1st of the month should be illegible for military service.

      Reply

    • KH says:

      08:10am | 04/08/10

      If you can’t afford to have a child, then you shouldn’t be having them.  Baby bonus, no baby bonus, all these welfare payments should be neither here nor there if you are having the child because you want it, and you have planned how you are going to live whilst taking time off work.  After all, people were doing that for years before all this welfare became the norm.

      This article only illustrates that Australians are so accustomed to having their hand out for more welfare, that we will probably go broke in the near future, just like Greece.  Welfare and handouts are not the answer to every problem.  The government should be addressing the real issues - like housing prices for example, getting rid of negative gearing, or building up public transport infrastructure.  This would benefit many more people than just people having babies, and would allow people having babies to live on one income comfortably instead of relying on handouts, it would mean conceding that housing is to live in, not an investment vehicle and allow many more people the ability to finally own a home, or allow people the ability to get rid of one of their cars and spend less on travel, and have travel that is reliable.  I’m sure there are other things that would benefit many more people than just new parents, and reduce the cost of living to make things easier.  Oh but that would be logical, difficult, and not popular in an electorate that has become conditioned to putting their hands out. 

      We all know who politicians are really working for, and it isn’t for the greater good.  They are only looking as far as the next election, and their own job.  Just hand out some more money.  We have a bottomless pit of it, after all.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      09:30am | 04/08/10

      Yeah KH you tell em!

      The biggest problem with buying babies is who we’re attracting to have them. Evetually we will see a nation of bought children who act like and were raised by trailer park scum.
      What was the rest of Australia doing? They were at work… Paying tax so our bought children could be raised in front of the worlds largest TV screen.

    • BK says:

      10:25am | 04/08/10

      The complexity of the many handouts is another matter. Family tax benefit A and B, Child care benefit, Partner allowance, claiming dependents on tax returns etc. mean that we can never be sure what our best option is. Every claim requires a few different forms, backed up copies of various pieces of paper. It must be a nightmare for seperated parents with shared custody.

      Governments need to stop micro-managing these handouts to target particular demographics and simplify the whole mess.

    • Karl says:

      10:45am | 04/08/10

      @KH

      I could not have said it better myself.

      Middle class welfare is not creating a good society nor is it benefiting anyone.

      Buying votes does no good whatsoever.

    • Dale says:

      11:11am | 04/08/10

      Spot on. Bravo. Escept only people who can afford babies should have them? Yep but then you need to have abortions subsidised by Medicare and end this compulsory christian supported counselling before abortion bullshit. Because then you force those who can’t afford kids to be roped into having them and reliant on handouts. I’m sure there will be people who say “Don’t have sex then” but preaching celibacy for the poor hasn’t worked for 2000 years and won’t work for the next 2000.
      And yes women have become political footballs. Let them make their own decisions.

    • Steve m says:

      12:41pm | 04/08/10

      Garhage. It is difficult to live on one wage and raise your family in a decent manner. If the government wants to give away some money to make it easier then great. We watch subsidies go to many sections of the community and business, why shouldnt parents benefit as well? Oh thats right, because i’m not eligible for something the it is wrong. Thats the mentality of many now.  And as for people having babies just for the money, anyone who has had a child will be able to tell you that $6k doesnt go far at all. There will be people who will take advantage of any handout, that doesnt make the whole scheme wrong. And what can i say to “trailer park scum”. What a disgusting generalisation to prop up your weak argument. Oh well, what else can we expect from the self serving….

    • phil says:

      12:48pm | 04/08/10

      Agree if you cant afford a child then dont have one.

      Currently we are as a society in my opinion encouraging often the wrong mothers to have babies. Often single and without a firm committed relationship. Even we have some having children for the money. What type of society are we raring with this mentality. What are the long term risks to stability and the mental health of the children who never see their fathers, or where one family has children to 3 or more fathers.

      I hate to mention the words breeding or pedigree, but is it not successful career women sho we want to encourage to have one or more children. The ALP system is a start and welcome but in reality it doesnt cost that much more than the baby bonus and anyone who works for a large companies own salary, but would leave many higher paid women at a massive loss, and due to circumstances it may not financially be viable for them to have children.

      I hear you all saying that thats their problem and you are right. But just think our careers whether they be a hairdresser at the local store or working for an international company in a high position are all matters of choice. Yes choice and academic achievement. Both in my opinion are linked to hard work.  My wife chose to be a hairdresser and a damm good one at that. I didnt marry her cause of her earning potential, but cause I loved her and knew she would make a fantastic mother if we were blessed with children which we are. Having discussed our desires after children and agreeing on our family situation prior to going into a marriage. Yes a few things have changed, but all in all we are going ok.

      I never got any baby bonus but dont care I love my children all the same and would have had more if circumstances were different, regardless of the monetary outcome.

      Yes labor lead class war, that is a fact. When my wife had our first the obst. charged me $2500 of which medicare paid me $900. The second one $4,500 of which I got back $500 odd. In addition I paid the private room rate at the public hospital which saved more monies, plus various other costs. I dont begrudge one cent I spent. The professor was top class and did a fantastic job as did the staff at RHW Randwick.

    • KH says:

      01:34pm | 04/08/10

      Steve M - did you actually read my comment?!  Its nothing to do with not being eligible for these handouts.  I don’t want handouts - that is the point I am making.  Australia is becoming a welfare state - in which just about everyone can make a claim of some kind, from baby bonus to the pension - from the cradle to the grave there is some welfare instrument that covers just about everyone, which is outrageous.  This is wrong.

      Baby bonuses and maternity leave payments are throwing money at people to make it easier to cope with the loss of income after having a baby.  Its a short term fix, and does nothing to address the underlying causes of people not being able to live on one income for a short period of time in the first place.  More than that, it makes things worse - people have more money which means prices continue going up, so more welfare dollars to compensate.  Where does it end?  Doing something about the ridiculous cost of housing and the appalling state of infrastructure spreads the benefit across multiple groups in the larger community, and makes better use of public money, but it isn’t as sexy as giving people cheques.  There is no bottomless pit of money anywhere, and at some point, the system has to collapse, as there won’t be enough people paying enough tax to cover it all.  Surely even you can see that?

    • TJ says:

      01:42pm | 04/08/10

      @Phil - I am a single mother because my boyfriend knocked me up and then demanded I get an abortion, i refused and have nothing to do with him and he wants nothing to do with our twin girls, but thankfully I am able to afford them without relying on the government

    • Phil says:

      02:25pm | 04/08/10

      TJ My comments were intended that the current and previous system incouraged some women to get pregnant just for the cash.
      It would appear that was not your case. I therefore unreservedly apologise if I have caused you any offence, as that was not the intended point. My point was that some deliberately get pregnant. I am not against single mothers/parents as things do happen. I just dont agree with the 5 kids to 4 different fathers that unfortunately does occur simply for the cash and welfare.
      Good luck with your girls. As a father of two daughters I can honestly say they are the best thing to happen to me. I admire your courage in bringing them up.

    • MrX says:

      12:40am | 05/08/10

      Yeah, because we’re in the same boat as Greece.
      *rolls eyes*

      Both parties have had baby bonuses. The people that exploit them tend to be lower socio-economic, not middle class. Clearly policy should be helping those people by addressing the causes of their problems (i.e drugs, domestic violence and so on) rather than putting a welfare band-aid on the issues they face.

      But we don’t have *too much* welfare while their problems are not being addressed. Quit with the whinging and scarcity arguments. Do you know that the world produces 140% more food than it needs?

      There is an overabundance. Yet of course, people are starving. The problem is distribution, and the polarisation of wealth, rather than welfare.

    • Holly says:

      08:20am | 04/08/10

      Tony Abbott is making policy on the run.  His paid parental leave scheme was originally to cost about $3billion per annum but last night I heard that the cost had been adjusted up to over $4.2 billion.  This was originally to have been to be funded by a temporary 1.7% tax on businesses with a taxable income over $5 million but will now be funded by a 1.5% tax on these companies and partly directly from the taxpayer.  Of course the companies paying the tax will now have to factor in this extra cost and this will be passed on indirectly to consumers.  Tony Abbott has also delayed the implementation date.  However he has identified in his “savings” the $20 million Labor had set aside to implement this scheme - so I’ m not sure how he intends to pay the implementation cost.  His costings for the scheme have not been subjected to any independent scrutiny and since they have increased over $1billion in one week are not to be relied on.  So much for no great big new taxes.

      Previously many businesses had funded their own maternity leave provisions.  This was more likely the case for higher paid workers. But there were a number of women who did not have access to any paid maternity leave - casual workers, self employed workers and those in low paid jobs with no provision for this benefit.  The Labor scheme provides for a minimum provision of 18 weeks at the minimum wage.  This of course means that those workers with parental leave provisions in their awards or enterprise agreements or individual contracts will still have their payments topped up to this amount.  The Labor scheme is fully funded and costed and is now legislated for.

      It is tempting to see the coalition scheme as more generous - paying up to $75,000 instead of the minimum wage, but these higher paid workers already had access to parental leave provisions and I guess the big question is which is a more equitable and affordable arrangement for the government and the taxpayer and less likely to be rorted.

      I read in an opinion column this morning that not one of the coalition economics team has even one day’s any experience in managing an economy. The cracks are certainly beginning to show.  Tony Abbott’s mantra stop the big new taxes is just that,  a mantra.  His new 1.5% tax for this scheme will raise over $6billion in 2 years to benefit the women who are in the main already well catered for. Yet he has the hide to reject a tax on our resources which will benefit the entire nation.

      No wonder he does not want a debate on the economy.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      09:21am | 04/08/10

      I think Holly is the new Persephone? anyone?

    • Macca says:

      10:02am | 04/08/10

      @Holly “It is tempting to see the coalition scheme as more generous”.

      it is, if you (well, your wife / partner / mother of the child) are working full or part time, and your annual salary is greater than $20,516.40 before tax, than you will receive a greater Leave payment under an Abbott Government.


      A few other myths I would just like to answer in your post. I feel this will be like talking to a brick wall, but I will attempt anyway

      “His paid parental leave scheme was originally to cost about $3billion per annum but last night I heard that the cost had been adjusted up to over $4.2 billion”. Wayne Swan leads us to believe that the Mining Tax drop to 30% from 40% will only reduce the income generated by $1.5bn. He later admits that the reduction will be closer to $14bn.

      “Of course the companies paying the tax will now have to factor in this extra cost and this will be passed on indirectly to consumers”. Could you please expand on this comment in relation to the Mining Tax?
      Of course this statement is not entirely true as Abbott is cutting the company tax by 1.5%. So it will simply mean the top earning companies in this country won’t receive a tax cut. And a Labor supporter is against that?

      “The Labor scheme is ... now legislated for”. Well obviously the Coalition policy is legislated for, they are not in power.

      “I read in an opinion column this morning that not one of the coalition economics team has even one day’s any experience in managing an economy”. And what credentials excatly did Swan, Gillard, Tanner and Rudd have when you voted for them in ‘07?

    • Ryan says:

      10:27am | 04/08/10

      I agree with Macca, Persephone couldn’t show her face anymore due to her hero Rudd being stabbed squarely in the back by Gillard so the solution was to re-invent herself as a different persona on the web and continue spouting propaganda.
      What is the most glaringly obvious about it is that Persephone disappeared at the same time as this Holly appeared.

    • MarK says:

      10:35am | 04/08/10

      No peresphone was more shrill and dogmatic. Pers also just copied Labor policy or spin. Holly just does the spin.

      I am interested in Holly’s theory that paid parental leave can be rorted. How does one actually lie to an employer about having a kid? Does the woman wear the “fake tummy pillow” like on that excellent show Glee.

      How do you rort it?

    • Detective Tails says:

      10:52am | 04/08/10

      persephone = Julia GIllard.

      I think it was pretty bloody obvious kids.

    • Ray Graham says:

      08:20am | 04/08/10

      Tory, with all due respect women have thrived on being the be all and end all of political footballs with a bag of goodies wrapped up for them at each election. Women thrive on the fact they are the focus of all vote winning payouts.

      No election in my living memory has not been sweetened with some out of proportion vote bribing ‘policy’.

      When women want to wallow in their elevated status for gain and not for any minor imbuggerance, or can take the good with the not so bad, please get back to me

      Reply

    • MrX says:

      12:48am | 05/08/10

      I assume you’ll be voting for Tony as you share his values.

      Tarring all of a gender with the one brush stroke is a sure fire way to live a miserable life. No matter which you choose, remember that they do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

      Just because you hear about ‘special’ women’s issues all the time doesn’t mean women everywhere are wallowing in the attention.

      Critical thinking skills may allow the realisation that many special women’s issues aren’t pertinent to only women, and it is a societal bias that they are even made that way. Think fathers and parental leave.

      Alas, some pollies come in with 1950s gender roles, and only in Australia does it seem to wash so well.

      I guess we have an ageing population and all, plenty of old farts who couldn’t learn new tricks like gender equality if they tried.

    • Ray says:

      05:46pm | 06/08/10

      Well MrX it certainly is a trick.


      Also the 50s argument is old hat and doesn’t hold water

    • fehowarth says:

      08:37am | 04/08/10

      Mr. Abbott seems to believe that the women he most admires are mothers with young babies.  He has bee only seen with these women.  Mr. Abbott, many fathers of girls have shocking relationship with women.  At the beginning of your campaign, you were careful not to use “she” too often.  You made up for that yesterday.  I, like many women find it grating to hear “she” to often.  Most women in our society do not have young babies.  Men are also a part of society.  You neglect them at your peril.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      09:25am | 04/08/10

      @Fehowarth, your comment implies that the Baby Bonus provides no benefit to men. Considering Men are still the main breadwinner in many houses (equal pay amongst men & women yet to be acheived), I would suggest that the Baby Bonus is beneficial to any household, and thus, any male breadwinner with a child on the way

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:42am | 04/08/10

      This baby bonus like all child welfare payments should only apply to the first two children of any union.
      “one for mum, one for dad and one for Australia” is only going to increase our Carbon Footprint.

      31/07/10. BBC NEWS.
      ·  One in five UK women will not have children, many by choice
      ·  Among female graduates, this rises to one in three according to some studies.
      ·  Teenage single mums are becoming biggest social group giving birth in the UK.
      ·  Infertility affects 2-3% of women globally, says the UN.
      US Census Bureau says 36% of American women have no children.

    • Macca says:

      11:08am | 04/08/10

      @Sherekahn,

      Whilst I can understand your sentiments (if you can afford to raise a third / Seventh child you probably don’t need the baby bonus), do you have any data from Australia (rather than the BBC).

      I read an article the other day (can’t find it, sorry) that said that Gen-X University graduates were no more or less likely to have children than their non-tertiary educated peers.

    • Helena D says:

      01:07pm | 04/08/10

      I agree fehowarth, as a female it did bother me to much about his no means no gaff yesterday, but I can understand why it upset some women, what I found appalling, was that he blamed Julia Gillard for a smear campaigne, when it was The Greens who raised objections. Next time Tony just say I apologise to those I offended with my silly gaff!! Don’t blame women for your mistakes its very cowardly

    • Macca says:

      08:38am | 04/08/10

      Cue comments about “my taxes” and “choice” advocating cuts to all child related welfare

      “More uncertainty and anxiety heaped on people who could probably have done without more uncertainty and anxiety”. I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      09:06am | 04/08/10

      Can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:33am | 04/08/10

      There is a simple solution to all of this, stop all the hand-outs, maternity leave and family tax benefits.. simply change the tax system to tax the couple as a family rather than as individuals.
      It is ridiculous that two income earners in a family earning $55 000 pay SUBSTANTIALLY less tax than one income earner in a family earning $110 000.
      This will make all things equal and put today’s children on the same level playing field as their obnoxious baby boomer counterparts who clearly paid less tax and had everything cheaper and laid on thick.. free education, cheap housing etc.. etc.. etc..

      Reply

    • Dash says:

      11:42am | 04/08/10

      I agree Ryan. If you own a family business you can split your income, not to mention dealing in the cash economy and not declaring income. There is a significant bias against PAYG taxpayers in this country. The Henry review did not address the descrepency between the corporate tax rate and the top marginal rate and it was told by the government specifically not to look at the GST. So it was anything but independent and it was not a “root and branch” review. I have no idea why any individual in this country should be expected to pay more than the corporate rate in effective tax. The tax take on PAYG taxpayers should be capped at the corporate rate! Also GST will need to increase as the ageing population move out of the workforce. NZ recently increased their GST to 15% but at the same time reduced PAYG rates. The top marginal rate is just 33% there. You cannot avoid consumption. Beware of Gillard though. As a member of the Socialist Forum, she wrote about wealth redistribution using the tax system. If you’re educated and work hard for your money, be very careful of the socialist leader of the Labor party. Don’t let JOOLIYA FOOLIYA!

    • Rod Hagen says:

      10:47am | 04/08/10

      A distant August 2012 for Abbott’s scheme, eh, compared to births after 1st January 2011 for Labor’s !

      Pretty clearly the phrase “If its not on then its NOT ON” is going to take on a whole new meaning over the next 18 months for those planning a family if Abbott wins the election!

      Certainly likely to cause a lot of stress for those who hold to Abbott’s church’s views on contraception, too.

      If I was one of the 900,000 voting parents who are going to have a child in the 18 month period before Abbott’s scheme kicks in, if it ever does, I know which would look more appealing to me!

      Reply

    • TJ says:

      10:57am | 04/08/10

      I agree with others that if you can’t afford to have them without government assistance then don’t have them, let use that money to fix schools, hospitals anything else, we shouldn’t pay people to breed

      Reply

    • Cecil says:

      12:01pm | 04/08/10

      I see this morning that Tony Abbott has some sort of plan for over 50 year old’s. Giving employers money to keep the unemployed employed!! Its not a bad plan I guess if your an out of work boomer but its not good enough!!
      There are about 6 million plus boomers who are tired of working and seeing their tax dollars go to ” working class families” If this sounds hard, you have to remember we bought our children up without a brass razoo from the Government. We seem to be at short end of the straw all the way.We don’t object to our children or the elderly (our parents) getting assistance, but isn’t it time someone thought about us?. Our vote is a coin toss, its a case now of who we dislike the most.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      03:31pm | 04/08/10

      Might also note that this particular scheme is also a Cash for Clunkers scheme, only the clunkers in question are over 50s who haven’t been employed for a while and the Liberals are running it.  Not saying the over 50s are clunkers, of course, but it’ll be subject to the same rorts that people complain about on Cash for Clunkers and baby bonuses are.

      How? By manipulating the current industrial relations laws.  You can only get unfair dismissal compensation if you’re with an employer for more than 6 months (and in the case of small business, 12 months.)  Sack a worker one day prior to those time limits and the employee has no comeback.  And if you’re a casual with no fixed hours of work, your time as a casual doesn’t count towards that 6 or 12 months.

      What about unlawful dismissal, then—on the basis of age discrimination? Well, you can only get that if you run the case all the way through Federal Court and only if the reason for dismissal wasn’t tied to an inherent requirement of the job.

      I can see lots of small construction or manual-labour based employers rolling up to Centrelink looking to hire over-50 staff.  One day after getting the $3,000, they sack the staff members on the basis that “he was just physically not up to the job, mate.”  No comeback through unfair dismissal; no comeback through unlawful dismissal; and $3,000 in the employer’s pocket.

      This would be alleviated if the Liberals put a requirement on that you had to hire the over 50 for a minimum of 6 months, but business will howl that down.  They already whinge about the fact they can’t sack someone without having to answer to Fair Work Australia; they won’t take too kindly to the suggestion they are compelled to keep someone on before getting their hands on $3,000.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:51pm | 04/08/10

      Yeah, at least Abbott is going to toss some money towards the asset rich boomers. If you want hard done by, try being the singles and childless couples who have to work even harder to pay for it all…..

    • 6c legs says:

      12:10pm | 04/08/10

      imagine that, “women of child bearing age being made political footballs”?
      well, now they know what Asylum Seekers, Aborigines, and a whole host of minorities feel like!

      I and generations of women/men managed to have families without being bribed. We only had the number of children that we *could afford* to raise.

      I personally know of 8 women who bought top of the range dressage saddles (4/5grand each) to place on the back of their fancy imported Warmblood horses with their baby bonus. How is that NOT welfare for the wealthy - never mind it being called “middle class” welfare?

      I also know a woman whose preggers with her *ninth* child. She’s told me many times that the BB is the only reason that 7 of those kids exist. This person (and her brats) have turned being Trailer Trash into a gold medal event.

      The people who are happy to be paid to reproduce, but moan that Refugees get centerlink benefits come from both wealthy and poor suburbs, and their ideas about welfare are very skewed indeed.

      onya jonnie and co, you managed to screw with the moral compass of a whole generation, and now the mad monk wants his chance?
      No.

      Reply
    • Tory Maguire

      Tory Maguire says:

      01:23pm | 04/08/10

      You know 8 women who bought dressage saddles with their baby bonus! Good grief.

    • 6c legs says:

      07:42pm | 04/08/10

      Sure do, Tory.
      And i bet if i asked a few more women i know directly; ‘what did you spend your BB on?’  i’d put the stables on it that their reply would be that it went towards horse floats/horse tack/riding apparel/going overseas/new horse/attending clinic for overseas instructor… (the list for burning through thousands of dollars on dressage related stuff, is endless)

      I wish i was exaggerating, but I’m not.

    • Daryl says:

      12:13pm | 04/08/10

      I’d much prefer to see my taxes used to support working mothers than
      p!ssed away to rorting builders under the schools scheme, or used to fix the insulation fiasco mess Labor has created, or used to hold a useless 2020 summit, or thrown down the black hole that is the National Broadband network. And I’d much prefer it to go to a parental scheme than used on $900 handouts to dead people or people who live overseas so that they can buy plasmas and stimulate the Japanese economy. As for Labor saying it’s inflationary, what about the inflationary impact their 3% superannuation increased cost to business, or the inflationary impact of the additional power prices resulting from their planned ETS not to mention the inflationary pressures of their mining tax. Talk about hypocricy!

      Reply

    • Julia says:

      01:10pm | 04/08/10

      Welcome to my world.

      Reply

    • Pip says:

      01:19pm | 04/08/10

      As the Mother of 3 Child bearing age daughter’s all of whom are tertiary educated, employed with great salaries in very competitive work with their male counterparts, they know that even if its 6 months or 18 weeks maternity leave,  that the moment they admit to being pregnant the system starts to overlook them for promotions and its all over, so just shut up Tony Abbott because,  your just bull shitting the voters, about Paid Maternity leave, from an angry Mother,  who had no assistance from government and coped very well with out it.

      Reply

    • Felicia says:

      01:31pm | 04/08/10

      What’s the bet , if he gets elected he will change his mind and stick to Labors scheme. The young today are duped by the sound of more welfare dollars rattling in the coffers

    • Ray says:

      01:41pm | 04/08/10

      The poor dears Pip. Those from the protected species class. Were their male counterparts given the same opportunities at school and tertiary levels. Statistics tell me no.

    • We're not all bogans, thanks says:

      02:13pm | 04/08/10

      So. I’m a married professional woman who cannot afford to take the leave required to have a baby. It’s not that I can’t afford to keep it - I can’t afford the unpaid leave. There’s a difference here boys and girls! Once I’m back at work and everything is in full swing, no worries. But it would be nice to go back to work a little less in debt than if there was no help.

      Those who squeal, “I didn’t get any help, so you shouldn’t either”, shame on you. Bet you want a pension raise when it’s your turn. Swings and roundabouts.

      It’s not all going to be spent on the latest plasma telly.

      Once society realises that children are the future, that we should assist families to spend actual time together, and that rearing a child is the responsibility of the MOTHER AND FATHER by allowing fathers time off etc, then we can all move forward.

      This bitterness about the leave scheme is very un-Australian, if you ask me.

      Reply

    • Alosia says:

      02:42pm | 04/08/10

      Your life, your children, your job..your problem. Why should we as taxpayers be supporting you. Start living up to your own responsibilities and taking care of your own life

    • Vicki PS says:

      10:18pm | 04/08/10

      Dear Not Bogans, I still am amazed to find myself saying this, but I don’t support the paid parental leave scheme.  It’s a very expensive vote-grabbing ploy aimed at the well-heeled professional middle class, that does nothing for the most disadvantaged families and even gives bigger handouts to those with greater incomes.  Talk about money for old rope!  In reply to your patronising excuse that you “can’t afford the unpaid leave”, how the heck do you think married professionals managed to have kids in the past?  The unpalatable truth is that we SAVED enough to meet our commitments during our unpaid leave, and weren’t quite so greedy about wanting a 5-star lifestyle, and children as well, on a 3-star income.  Guaranteeing the parent taking leave access to an allowance equivalent to NewStart (with the same income and asset tests) for the period of unpaid leave, would seem to me to be the most equitable scheme.

    • Annie says:

      11:06pm | 04/08/10

      OMG…‘married professional woman who cannot afford to take the leave required to have a baby’ ever heard of saving up. If you can’t see ahead with savings to afford the privilege of reproduction, then why should I have to pay for it.

    • We're not all bogans, thanks says:

      03:07pm | 04/08/10

      Every time you take medication, every time you see a doctor, when you send your children to school, when you drive on a road, the community support you! Your taxes go to these items too. How about you start paying the full price of medications next time you get sick?

      Reply

    • Alosia says:

      04:10pm | 04/08/10

      How about you do the same!! Do you want us to feed you also?

    • JT says:

      04:24pm | 04/08/10

      The myth of the mother “who’ll do anything for her child” is now dead, buried and cremated (to use Tony’s terms).  This Clinks for Clunks scheme has shown how selfish some women can be.  Yes it’s creating a whole generation of children who were only brought about because their mums wanted a new plasma screen.  I wonder if those kids will have a plasma screen in their prison cells when they grow up?

      Reply

    • Holly says:

      05:36pm | 04/08/10

      Some interesting comments above.  I’m pleased to find out I have a price on my head but not so impressed that over fifty is considered old.  So a black mark to Tony for that.  The big catch is that the scheme for older workers applies to full time positions only and I think many of us want to wind down to retirement working only part time.  You are dead right Michael about employers who rort these schemes as there was one some years ago for younger unemployed people and those who had been out of the workforce for a long time and this is exactly what happened. 

      The coalition Paid Parental Leave system will be paid by the Family Assistance Office and be classed as a welfare payment .  So this must mean Abbott is socialist convert.  He is certainly raising a Great Big New Tax to pay for it.

      Reply

    • Holly says:

      05:47pm | 04/08/10

      Actually I’ll justadd - the temporary Levy is on richest companies with $5 million taxable income or more.  This must then make it Tony’s own super profits tax (until we suckers get to pay for it).

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed