I am woman, no comment.

Front Row says:

06:37pm | 15/03/10

Well put, Peter.
Nobody is asking what happens when the balance tips from the best people working in Small Business leave to work for Big Business - because they know that the small bloke will inevitably fall over simply through not having enough people to cover the skills loss of those well-qualified parents leaving them in the lurch to indulge in unnecessary children.
We do not need the luxury of over-breeding at the moment. Need to think about how to get the best out of our 70 year olds, which should not be too hard.  Just make it work so anyone who works between 65-75 does so tax-free, whatever they earn. Cheaper.

Raelene says:

05:53pm | 14/03/10

Ray, you are a genius. When women are running the world and men are duly paying their life time levy I will recommend you as the token male. Sorry I’m a bit late, the horse has bolted. They already run the world, corner all the benefits and do SFA other than seek special privelege.  You will never live long enough to see boys treated fairly in education.

Othello Cat says:

11:35pm | 15/03/10

Moira says a lot a strawmen and needs to work on reading comprehension. Before the other strawmen are trotted out, I will say I am not asking that children be made to starve in the streets nor am I suggesting that parents ought to raise children with no support at all. And I am not opposed to handouts merely because I am not getting one.

If you paid attention, I was cognisant of the social value of future taxpayers et al. Since you missed it, I will repeat “...why not offer parents **social services** aimed at making them better parents and I have no argument that social wealth is of long term benefit to me and society.”

Geddit? 

I strongly believe in hand-ups to address socio-economic disadvantage but I certainly oppose handouts to the wealthy.  I oppose the idea that many childless working poor singles and couples face the prospect of never owning a home of their own because their incomes are redirected to wealthier middle class parents so may buy their child an personal mp3 player.

Without a hint of irony, it seems the voices of those who argue against the notion that children are a private good and insist they are social goods are, incongruously,  supporters of private welfare – in the form of taxpayer-funded cash handouts —for parents and they seem to revile social support such as government supplied services for mothers and their children. How incongruous.

Overwhelming, it is, at best, ideological and dogmatic. At worse it is little more than a poorly disguised piece of obnoxious social engineering that shrieks crude social-engineering; “if you are not married and making children, you are not worthy of being a member of society”

Front Row says:

07:09pm | 15/03/10

Moria,
Does that mean you are on the winner’s list?
Regards
Front Row

Front Row says:

07:01pm | 15/03/10

Othello Cat.
Comrade, some guidance…
Until you can understand what damage we so-called Australians do by going on “holidays” and thus exploiting workers in countries like Fiji, Bali etc (that rely on non-unionised labour to service our “needs”) then you are most certainly at the heart of the world’s Great Problem.
The New Children will be the early benefactees of the century’s Grand Benevolence. For these children, later, the United Nations, Canberra, the Hague… the Family Court, even.
How dare you question those of us who work to bring the great surge of our legislated economy, and the right to to perpetuate a Common Right of Privilege?
Don’t you see how much they sacrifice?
My child, do you expect that their money and power should in fact come from the production and supply of a saleable commodity in to some tawdry market somewhere?  Do you seriously contend that our Nation should be denied the Progeny of our Leaders?
I do.
Well argued.  You’ve won me.  We have them, we pay for them.

Moira says:

07:43pm | 13/03/10

“If – and ONLY if – it can be shown that raising children deliver benefits to the rest of society”

Whilst reading this I am scratching my head.  Parents and taxpayers are not mutually exclusive.  It is a strange strange world that we occupy when members of our society wash their hands of responsibility for the future generations.  The BENEFIT of raising children is that the carers, taxpayers and workers of tomorrow are being supplied.  Do you truly not see the benefit.  Your bitter-I aint got nothing for ‘free’ so no one else is going too’- individualist argument is reminiscent of many an old timer who walked 10 miles through the rain and snow to get to school…you know the rest.  Your ideas are anachronistic.  Expand your mind.

Terry Wright says:

11:14am | 13/03/10

WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE “MARIJUANA BABIES”!!!

He He He ...  “Marijuana Babies”. Cannabis is NOT physically addictive and the idea of “Marijuana Babies” is so ludicrous that only a anti-drug zealot could support it. I suppose these babies have also gone on to harder drugs whilst in the womb a.k.a. the gateway theory? Or have they have developed Amotivational Syndrome because they don’t go out much? LOL!

The last time I heard of a “Marijuana Baby” was from your hero, Judge Judy

If you read my post without going cross-eyed from underwear entanglement, you will notice that I was pointing out the contradictions from SM. If the first 6 months is so vital for the mother to bond with her new child why does SM also support removing children from mothers whose only crime is to have used drugs within the last 12 months before the birth. Only a very small group of drug users are addicts or have a serious dependancy. Maybe there should be some intervention for these people but unless their life is in chaos or they might put their child in risky situations, then why shouldn’t they raise their child. Many drug addicts and alcoholics do it everyday in the middle class suburbs but they never considered unfit. It appears that you have formed your view of drug users and alcoholics from Hollywood, ACA or the Daily Telegraph.

JR says:

04:01pm | 12/03/10

So you think heavy boozing mothers spend a lot of time with their babies? Not really sure of the relevance of your post.

Nellie says:

05:01pm | 13/03/10

Has it occurred to you kids we have done our bit for our children and its time you tried sacrifice for yours? Why should the boomers continually give give give. Time you tried you tried a bit of giving yourselves.

Isabella says:

10:24am | 13/03/10

Millicent I am not only in your position I think thousands of Australian grandparents are in the same boat. My son informed me that if Abbotts plan comes in, they will ha ve another child they already have 5 and go to Italy for a holiday.  Sounds great !! The only flaw is that I get to mind all 5 while they are gone including the new baby. I am so sick of this, I feel like all my life I have spent raising children. I have not had help for any of them and its very hard now I am on a pension. These kids don’t care about us, and its our fault we went without to give them a good life. Now they expect it not only from us but from The Governement

Millicent says:

10:15pm | 12/03/10

I think its time Helen these adults who are our children started paying for themselves. No Parent wants or expects to have children dependent on Government aide of any sort. Speaking as a grandmother I am so tired of minding permanently it seems by 4 granchildren under 5 years old. I am unpaid and provide even their meals. They are bathed and fed and ready to be put to bed when their mother collects them at 5.45pm. I love my children and my granchildren but I like many grandmothers are under paid and overworked so my children can get the benifits. If you feel thats unfair then you try it.

H of SA says:

03:54pm | 12/03/10

Yup Helen,

Agreed one would presume that the loving sacrificing parents do not begrudge someone else also making life better for their kids

Botfly says:

10:18am | 13/03/10

well said I agree

Othello Cat says:

12:16am | 13/03/10

@ JR It is called annual leave. Save up enough and there you go

Yes. So why should parental leave be any different? Yanno, like, save up for it yourself rather than expecting everyone else to pay for it?

JR says:

03:15pm | 12/03/10

They don’t, but your employer does. It is called annual leave. Save up enough and there you go.

Peter says:

10:47am | 15/03/10

You want more Von? You want more? I didn’t contribute to my super for 25 years, but I still feel confortable that I will have enough when I retire.. You want more Von for taking 6 months off? What other rights are you entitled to Von? Do you want more of other peoples money??

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

04:27pm | 12/03/10

The only flaw with the Swedish plan is that we aren’t taxed high enough to support it.

Von says:

02:59pm | 12/03/10

I like that idea. But also, I’d like to see super in there as well. We’ve always said that women have less super because they take time off to have children so if they’re going to be paid their wages in maternity leave, how about 9% of that gets put into super as well??

persephone says:

05:19pm | 12/03/10

Oh dear, some poster here have such comprehension difficulties that, no matter how qualify what I’m saying, they still misunderstand it (but hey, on the other hand, maybe I’m not clear enough!)

“General benefit” means just that. It doesn’t always cover everybody, and some people may never benefit from it, but it doesn’t exclude anyone purposively, either.

So you might never ever use a hospital. But they’re still provided, and if you need one, it’s there.

You might never, ever be on the dole. But in case you need it, it’s there.

Some general benefits are even more amorphous. So, for example, few of us would argue with tax money being spent on a Defence Force, even though we’re not actively involved in a direct attack on our country.

This is the understood meaning of ‘general benefit’.

You may never think you need it, you may never need it, but it is available to you if you do.

Thus a parental allowance is a general benefit, which should be funded out of general revenue.

You may not think you’re ever going to be a parent, but it’s there if you are.

You may not get a direct benefit by way of a child, but the children born under such a scheme will be the taxpayers of the future who provide the ‘general benefit’ of your aged care needs.

Yes, we take higher taxes from the individuals who can afford them (although there is a tendency for those on higher incomes to avoid tax!). The only real equitable solution to this is a more socialist system, such as that in Sweden, where everyone pays higher taxes but everyone has an equal entitlement to benefits.

I’m up for it if you are.

ChrisG says:

01:38pm | 12/03/10

persephone, “We don’t levy a tax on one group of people with the stated purpose of spending money on another” - surely you don’t believe that statement: thanks to social and liberal democratic governments in the 20th century, that is exactly what progressive taxation does. we tax higher income people more to fund welfare programs they may or may not benefit directly from, and company taxes fund programs they do not benefit from other than as groups of citizens

persephone says:

01:20pm | 12/03/10

Wayne

honestly, didn’t you do Greek myths at school?

I’m one person.

I may support Labor (well, obviously I do) but, unlike many of the Liberal supporters here, at least I try and explain why, instead of indulging in personal abuse.

Now, instead of meditating unprofitably on the nature of my existence, perhaps you could address some of my arguments?

persephone says:

01:16pm | 12/03/10

I’m anti men? Strange take on my comments.

Of course I recognise that general revenue is raised from taxes, and indeed specifically said so in my comment - that it comes from income and company taxes, which are levied - as far as possible - on ‘everyone’ to support the services that benefit ‘everyone’.

We don’t levy a tax on one group of people with the stated purpose of spending money on another.

This tax does this. It targets big business purely because they’re big business, not because they’ve been treating female employees badly, not because they employ/don’t employ a disproportionate number of females, not because they benefit the most from a parental tax plan, or any other possible reason one can come up with.

It’s taxation on the basis of a whim.

It’s as if we whacked a couple of extra cents on each litre of petrol with the stated intention of using the money to pay for national parks.

It might be a good way to raise the funds, but it can’t be justified on the terms of good tax policy.

ChrisG says:

12:53pm | 12/03/10

persephone, there is usually logic in taxes, usually mixed logics actually (economic and political), but I don’t think your logic is consistent in this matter

when government provides a general benefit from general revenue, it is doing so from revenues gathered at unequal rates of contribution. The contribution doesn’t generate an entitlement to equal access to the benefits, which are often aligned to the particular circumstances of the beneficiaries or the particular social objectives of the program

As I have said, there is nothing revolutionary about gathering revenues based on capacity to contribute and involving exemption thresholds. There are strong arguments internationally for universal access to programs that are based on fundamental rights or that generate common good outcomes (in this case, better quality of first year life for children, workplace equity for all women, and hard-nosed workforce participation strategies).

what is shocking to some is that Abbott has thought and acted beyond the ideological categories in which they have sought to place him. I think Bob Brown, for example, has said that he is hurting from the experience of seeing a proposal from the Liberal leader that so clearly meets to common good goals his side have usually insisted were theirs alone.

Ray says:

12:51pm | 12/03/10

Persephone , do you live in dream land. ‘should come out of general revenue’. Well what’s that? Doesn’t general revenue come from the taxpayer or company tax or other taxes. Either way the public is paying for more welfare for women. There is no golden eagle flying overhead that craps gold ingots. The taxpayer pays. Typical female opinion because someone always pays their way, be it the government, suitors who pay at the bar or restaurant, or divorced males courtesy of the family court, one way or the other.

The way we are heading also with education, soon females will hold all the well paying jobs as recognised by Mirabella.  They will have time off to have babies like Queen bees, while men slave away as the drones of society and the feminist throttle will never be released from the throat of the subjigated male species. Men have nothing to look forward to in this female oriented society. And judging by the comments of superior female beings such as yourself this will be celebrated by International Demise of Men Day to complement International Women’s Day.

persephone says:

12:10pm | 12/03/10

I have explained my views on tax at length in previous threads on this topic, but will do so again.

Taxes should have some kind of logic to the way they are administered.

So if the government provides a service which is of benefit to the general community, that should be funded out of a tax which applies to the general community (so general services are funded out of general revenue, whcih is income and company taxes).

If the service targets a particular group, the tax should be applied to that particular group (so we have particular industry taxes which fund research and development into those industries).

The other kind of tax is one aimed to encourage or discourage particular behaviours - taxes on alcohol or smoking, for example.

For this tax to be fair, therefore, it should be either coming out of general revenue (because it provides a service of benefit to all in society), or target companies whose record on supporting women in the workforce is below average (thus encouraging them to lift their game, or acknowledging that they’re failing to pull their weight).

Interestingly, I think that most of the taxes you refer to are State taxes, where revenue raising has to necessarily take a different approach.

I would still support the general principles I outline above, though.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

12:09pm | 12/03/10

Chris G : Very well said indeed !  persephone’s claim to facts in her posts is questionable . Most of it is based on what persephone WANTS
everything to be.  Notably ,  her wish list always reflects Labor thinking
and that is her right . Much of her post comment is simply Labor dogma,
which she puts forward as her way of thinking. Brainwashed ?
The number of her posts astounds me !  Is persephone one person or a Labor group of several people. ?  Is persephone M or F ? 
If the answer is M , do we pronounce it PURSY-FONE ?
Either way , persephone is an enigma.

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

04:24pm | 12/03/10

Lee the biggest road block to Labor’s chances of re-election sits in “The Lodge” with his snout firmly in the trough. Little Kevvy will make the debacle of the Whitlam years seem tame.

The Dove says:

11:32am | 12/03/10

Lee she is against it because it is inequitable. And she is smart enough to understand that overbalancing such a scheme will put more pressure on business which employs her members. Result,it is clawed back either through reduced wages and conditions or higher pricing for consumers which are also her members.I suggest you think it over Lee and realize that she is probably doing you a favour too!

Peter says:

10:20am | 15/03/10

You watch Eric, they will be coming up with new “rights” next week. Don’t know what they are, im sure they are in their little committees coming up with something new to claim is “their right”.

Eric says:

05:12pm | 12/03/10

Feminist debating tactic #1: If you can’t argue the facts, attack your opponent personally.

Peter says:

02:23pm | 12/03/10

What’s wrong Helen? Your free to pick holes in anything I said.. Is there anything inaccurate in what I said?

Sarah says:

11:16am | 12/03/10

Liz, see my comment to Jill above too - your response is just confirming Sohpie’s view that the women’s movement is not supporting Abbott’s policy because they hate Abbott.  Build a bridge and get over it.  The negative reactions will just kill the policy and delay any potential extension of the government’s planned scheme.  Even if the Coalition opposes the government scheme in the Senate, the government only needs the support of the Greens and the 2 independents to get it through.  If everyone came out whooping in support of the ABbott plan, then you bet Rudd would rethink the fiscal priorities and extend his own plan sooner.

Peter says:

10:28am | 15/03/10

Hi Bon, thanks for your reply. The point im trying to make is thing are getting ridiculous. Just read on the forum the sense of entitlement some of the women have to other peoples money. Unbelievable. Also, the point I was trying to make “sleeping around on your neighbour”, im sure most women don’t, but what I am saying is, if you did and you husband caught you and wanted to seperate, he would pay through his nose, even though you wronged him. You girls must be laughing at this “no fault divorce”, in that no matter what happens, the man pays.. You got us a good one there. Well done…

TC says:

02:52pm | 14/03/10

Tax concession on condoms is there to combat the spead of sexual disease.

Bon says:

02:32pm | 13/03/10

Peter I am a woman, have four children, got the baby bonus and guess how many mercedes and plasmas I have?  None.  Turns out, children cost a whole lot more money to raise than the few k the government hands out.  Who would have thought?  Here I was thinking I could knock out a few kids with the hubbie and we would be set up for life, luxury all the way.  I haven’t slept with Tiger Woods or my neighbour yet either, I must put that on my ‘to do’ list.  I also wasn’t aware that I could opt out of getting my period!  I would have done that years ago if I knew, could have saved so much money on luxurious pads and tampons.  Here I was just living my life, completely unaware that I was failing as a woman by not being a victim and not sleeping around on my husband.

Peter says:

02:31pm | 12/03/10

Hi RB, If condoms are tax free, I was not aware of it. If they are tax free they should be taxed, I agree. But condoms are for the enjoyment of both parties. Sanitary products for women is just like shaving cream for men. We have a GST, they should be taxed…

RB says:

02:05pm | 12/03/10

I agree with you that things have gone too far with the ‘female victim’ mentality. But seriously, for condoms to be GST free and not sanitary pads/tampons?? How is one a neccessity and not the other? Without the use of condoms there would be a lot less women needing sanitary items due to pregnancy!

Peter says:

02:28pm | 12/03/10

Ive never heard of a woman going to a male strip club.. Anyone out there like me? Never heard of a woman going to a male strip club??? Ever seen how they behave in them?? They put the rest of us males to shame….

Julia says:

01:00pm | 12/03/10

Yes, good point about the strip club. Besides, I wonder when are women going to wake up to the fact that welfare is not feminism.

I also think that Wolstonecraft would be writing on behalf of young men today, because she’d see the inequities which have developed from positive discrimination. But PD is an oxymoron anway because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, isn’t there?

Martin G says:

10:24am | 12/03/10

It’s an opinion site, Fergus. Besides, the plan *is* highly flawed.

Fergus says:

09:51am | 12/03/10

Tory Maguire: fair and balanced.

Othello Cat says:

12:11am | 13/03/10

@ Peter “No, but these feminists think they deserve your money just for being women.”

No Peter, they think they deserve money for being MOTHERS,  not women. Pay maternity leave is not really a gender issue. It is not a feminist matter at all.

The reality is that most women who have children are still in a relationship with the father of their newborn babies. So the proposal is not pro-women as such. It is pro-mothers and anti-single men and childless women, because the former group will be net winners, whilst the latter will be forced to pay for this lifestyle choice. For the rest, it’s just churn, where the money they have paid in the form of taxes is given back to them - a ridiculously inefficient outcome.

Writer Leon Bertrand observes

” ... paid maternity leave would represent an overall distribution of income away from single people and childless couples and in favour of couples and single mothers who have children. On the whole, it is therefore only very marginally pro-women. It’s far more pro-big governments, higher taxes and big spending… In many cases, paid maternity leave would mean a regressive distribution of income away from those who are poor towards those who are far less in need of it.

Even if you look at it from the Left’s own criteria, the plan is absurd. Those people that the Left consider to be in special classes of their own, including gay couples (who rarely have children) and career-driven women with no interest in having children, will be the biggest losers in such a scheme. Like the poor (the Left’s supposed primary concern), they will be forced to heavily subsidise the choices of others.” Bertrand concludes: “If feminism is really about gender equality, it shouldn’t treat women who have children as a special class that is automatically entitled to income from others, regardless of need.”

This agenda is dressed up as “equal opportunity” when what it really is seeking is an equality of outcomes.

The policy is not pro-women. It is a pro-certain types of women, namely those who are working and with the help of their partners who are raking it in.

Obviously some women are more equal than others.

Peter says:

01:52pm | 12/03/10

They can call “paid parental leave” what ever they like. If its coming out of the tax system then it is welfare. Welfare is for the needy only, not for rich feminists who group up to go to Canberra to ask for hand outs. Ever heard of a group of working men going to Canberra to ask for money they don’t need?? No, but these feminists think they deserve your money just for being women. How ugly they are becoming and all credibility has been lost…

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

07:00pm | 12/03/10

persephone , seems we willl have to agree to disagree. Must say though , your answers seem totally unrelated to mine. Probably because i deal in facts and you deal in Labor dogma.
Your recap made me smile , you are saying , in effect , that Rudd’s lower
Maternity Leave Minimum Wage offer to women for 18 weeks will be
more attractive than Tony Abbott’s Maternity Leave offer to women of their current salary for 26 weeks.
Women are already indicating that they really like Abbott’s proposal so i’ll stick with my view that female Labor voters will flock to the coalition.

To conclude :  The Abbottt policy proposal is almost certainly to be refined. We will all see a detailed statement as we draw closer to the election. Liberal philosophy & ideals , it’s principles and policies are for ALL Australians , not just Labors group selections.

persephone says:

01:40pm | 12/03/10

No, Wayne, there was no misunderstanding on my part, although I found some of your interpretations of my meanings a little peculiar.

I answered your answers, which shouldn’t be too hard a concept to grasp.

To recap: this won’t attract (many) voters.

It doesn’t offer enough to the lower income workers and anyone who’s on a higher income and isn’t already voting Liberal is not voting on hip pocket issues.

It won’t attract anyone who has even a basic understanding of how the economy works, and anyone with that kind of understanding who looks at the whole Liberal economic package will run a mile.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

01:14pm | 12/03/10

persephone ,  there seems to be a misunderstanding on your part.
The six paragraphs (numbered 1-6)  are answers to what i percieved as points you made in your post. Perhaps i should have said ” i will ANSWER each point as i construe them. “
persephone , when Tony Abbott took the matter to the party room the next morning , it was endorsed as A POLICY PROPOSAL. There is a big differrence and as i said , it will be refined & detailed into set policy.
That is my understanding of the matter.
                    The Abbott proposal is the more generous scheme and would obviously attract more women’s votes from traditional Labor voters. Likewise with the male Labor voter.
                    You have to be kidding if you believe a Labor $150 K earner would not change her vote to Liberal if it maintained her $150 K salary.
                    Economically literate voters will make up their voting mind on the entirety of Liberal policy , not just one policy, otherwise they would NOT be literate , would they. ?
                    Big business will also base their decisions on donations to the Liberal party on the entirety of the economic policy .
Like i said , you can bet on seeing big business policy containing offsets against any levy proposal.
                    ” AS FOR RUDD NAUGHTILY APPEALING TO VOTERS , THATS WHAT POLITICIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. “
Yes , that is just what Tony is doing , appealing to Labor voters , letting them know they will do better by voting Liberal . Human nature will apply,
the women are going to vote for the best deal , and the Liberal deal is far more attractive than what Rudd is proposing.

persephone says:

11:59am | 12/03/10

Wayne, it is a policy of the Liberal party, not a proposal.

It began as a proposal from Tony, aired in his speech on Women’s Day, but he then decided to take it to the party room the next morning and have it endorsed as Liberal party policy.

As for your points, some of which I don’t think i raised, but will address anyway:

1 & 2 If a woman is going to get the same under either scheme, she will not change her voting patterns. Therefore working class women are not going to change their vote on the basis of this scheme.

3. $150k earners are not going to change their votes either. If you earn that income and vote Labor, you’re not voting on the basis of self interest to begin with.

4. Economically literate voters are going to see this as yet one more example of Abbott’s inability to deal with economic issues. So far each of his policies has proposed spending more than the government, and this is the only one that identifies where the money is coming from.

5. I wasn’t talking about company directors, or their votes. I was talking about big business making decisions about where to send their political donations.

In the light of this policy, that money will be going to the ALP.

6. Didn’t say that. I made it clear that they both do it, and indeed they should. The trouble is that this one won’t attract Labor voters to the Liberals - or at least not in big enough numbers to make the exercise worthwhile.

And finally - you really should have a 7 - what are the economic offsets for big business? Abbott said yesterday that he will cut personal tax before company tax, and doesn’t expect to be able to do either for some years.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

11:15am | 12/03/10

persephone :  There seems to be 6 points to your comment . I will refer to each point as i construe them.
(1)  Tony Abbott ‘s proposal would attract votes from both Liberal & Labor traditional constituencies as it is the most attractive scheme.
Human nature will dictate that outcome.
(2)  Working class women will be quite happy provided they recieve their normal wage. That , too , is human nature.
(3)  $ 150 K types certainly are NOT sterotyped Liberal voters. You could
get yourself a big argument with that one in a group of $150 K ‘ers.
(4)  The ” economically literate ” voters are likely to balance their decision against the rest of an Abbott govt’s economic policies. Do you think he would go to an election with one policy. ?
(5)  A company director is hardly likely to base his voting intention on one policy either , as there will be an mix of economic policy.
(6) Is it OK for Rudd to appeal to voters via traditional Liberal constituencies but NOT OK for Abbott to appeal to voters via traditional
Labor voters. ?
                      At this stage , it is simply a proposal , not a set in concrete policy and you can be sure there is to be much more refining on the proposal before it is definate policy. You can also expect a lot of attention to the individual salary amount to be paid as well.
                      Abbott has played Rudd’s own cards against him
and it has really unsettled Labor’s Appararchiks. Yes , it has also unsettled business leaders too , but as i said , there will be econonomic policy offsets to calm the business community.

persephone says:

09:34am | 12/03/10

Wayne

Rudd was aiming to ‘steal’ voters from the Liberal’s traditional constituency, whereas Abbott’s policy will only play to the people who were going to vote for him anyway and will, in fact, alienate some of these.

Working class women aren’t going to say “Yippee! I am going to continue to scrape along on a mediocre payment but I rejoice because women who earn ten times more than me will continue to get heaps of money!”

The $150k types were very likely Abbott voters anyway.

And it will lose him votes from the economically literate, those who believed him when he said he wasn’t going to introduce any more taxes and many like those here who are traditional Liberal voters but don’t like ‘special deals’.

It will also lose him the support of the big companies - if ‘investing’ a couple of million this year to see the ALP re elected saves a company from the possibility of paying out that amount of money every year for the forseeable future, then that’s a good business decision.

As for Rudd naughtily appealing to voters, that’s what politicians are supposed to do.

Far from ‘zipping up’ I’ve been very vocal on how bad this policy is, although I am a believer in some sort of parental leave.

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

04:14pm | 12/03/10

GC51 A wise person will ALWAYS change their mind if a “reasoned” argument is presented to them, a fool NEVER does. This is like all the “Loony Left” lining up to bag Tony Abbott because he is a surf life saver (& heaven forbid, wear their uniform) yet when former PM & alcoholic Bob Hawke wore “Budgie Smugglers” on his flaccid torso, not a peep was heard, funny that.

JR says:

09:13am | 12/03/10

Who cares? This is where they are at now, and where they are saying they will be in the future. It’s as irrelevant as asking where was Whitlam on paid maternity leave. 90% of policies are cynical, but who cares as long as the policy is for the good of the country. Do you really care that introducing sick leave was probably done to get votes? It’s when a government does something simply for the fact that it is popular, yet does no good or harm to the country, that it is an issue. No you may make an argument that this is the case here. Well then make the argument, but don’t throw around rhetoric like ‘this is just for votes’, or where ‘were you on this during the great depression’.

susie says:

07:47pm | 12/03/10

Ah…..sounds like the Mantra of a childless greenie.

North Shore Princess says:

11:35pm | 15/03/10

Oh don’t be silly Paul. Sophie just said that “most” women earn more than the minimum wage. I think you are just making up all that stuff up about women at the bottom end of employment; causal and part-timers in working poverty. I have never seen it and clearly never has Sophie. She must be right coz, like, she is educated and a woman and all that.

Louise says:

02:25pm | 13/03/10

Actually Danielle, its Sharon Burrows and the ALP who want to erode the flexibilities in working arrangements by denying you and your employer the right to sort it out yourselves.

Instead, if you choose to work again, you will both be required to adhere to the wishes of a bunch of unions who couldn’t care less about your work life balance or the viability of your employer’s business.

I am a Gen Xer, have two primary school children, am degree qualified and work part-time for a hard working, considerate small business owner. I’m obviously prepared to put more effort into making it work than you are.

My employer is currently trying to make sense of all the new award rubbish shoved on him by Sharon Burrows and her ilk. He may have to let one of his part timers go as she does 4 short shifts (because it suits her family arrangements) that won’t comply with the new award. As a bonus, the workers get to pay for this Union interference with “membership fees” that the Union will use to pay for misleading advertising campaigns to get this incompetent Labor government re-elected.

If “Paid Parental leave needs to be a package to make life easier for young families” how is 18 weeks of minimum wage (that Sharon Burrows was loudly applauding)  better than 26 weeks of the wage you actually earn?

Ray says:

11:16am | 12/03/10

KW you are a mental pygmy, re you 1st paral; My son did and electrical apprenticeship with a major public (government) instramentality. There were 4 male aprenticeships and 2 female apprenticeships offered; 200 male applicants and 6 female applicants giving odds of 25 to1 for males and 3 to 1 for females to get an apprenticeship This was after females had stolen all the university entrances via a lop sided education system.The apprentice of the year was self assessment by the apprentices but they were told a female would be apprentice of the year and to vote any males for second place. A fine example of our egalitarian principled society . Subsequently the Minister in that Government would trot along to all medis conferences with the female apprentice of the year, called off the job to demonstrate the affirmative action to include females in the trades.  Do you need any further advice on where thiis country is heading, should I go slower, or does your mental capacity enable you to consume this.  Alternatively you have concealed your inteligence with profound skill for which I commend you.

Ray says:

10:53am | 12/03/10

KW you are a mental pygmy. To whit in the trades when my son did electician apprenticeship for a Government funded instrumentality there were 6 apprenticeships offered 2 for females 4 for males..- 6 female applicants &200; male applicants . So simply the odds for females were 1in 3; for males 1 in 25 . The apprentice of the year was self assessed with the boys told A girl will be first so you vote for runner up. That my friend is a reflection of the true eglitarian principles of our tainted society.

S says:

02:55pm | 12/03/10

@Tim

I think that is bec’s point.

Tim says:

10:14am | 12/03/10

Bec,
Since when did a university degree decide remuneration?
I know plenty of people with doctorates who earn 2/5ths of FA and I know tradies who earn shitloads.
Maybe the demand for that Arts degree in Feminist Studies isn’t quite what it was made out to be?

bec says:

07:50am | 12/03/10

White men are more likely than any other group in the community to enter the manual and technical trade fields, which end up paying a significant amount more than some of the more female-dominated professions that require a university degree.

former snag & a swinging voter. says:

01:27pm | 13/03/10

@Julia, Love your work. Some times i could hug you, but you did make one small spelling mistake. There is nothing feminine about radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, fe"man"nazi politics. They are femanists, fauxmanistas, femanazis, gender terrorists/jihadists, etc.

They don’t want you to have a happy, harmonious, relationship with your partner, son, brother, father, grandfather, indeed any man. They just want the gender wars to continue. Who knows the wars just might scare some women & girls queer, all to their twisted agenda.

If you or your children become collateral damage, then for them, so be it. Ends justifying means, breaking eggs while making omelettes, etc. And they certainly don’t want you voting for conservatives. Many of them don’t even vote #1, labour, opting for the red/greens and only grudgingly giving their preference vote to hard labour.

julia says:

11:00am | 12/03/10

No. Hang on. Sophie is right. The feminazis are quick to praise Krudd but never offer any encouragement to the conservative side of politics.

Did Cox or Burrows congratulate Coonan on the super co-contribiution? Nup. Did they say ‘good stuff’ to Costello on the baby bonus? Nup.

Let’s face it. Labor has conned the women’s movement into thinking the Liberals and Nationals don’t like working women. Far from it.

Sarah says:

11:00am | 12/03/10

Jill, I think you might be the one playing the juvinle blame game here.  Rather than taking the opportunity to bag Abbott & co, if it’s a good policy idea, why don’t you try to provide the support and assistance needed to implement it? You are sceptical and won’t whoop for joy - fair enough, at best it is only an opposition policy at this stage.  But fair suck of the sav, this is a great debate, let’s let business and the thinktanks and media or whoever know that we want something like this to become a workable policy? Don’t set the policy up to fail just because it’s the Coalition.

David says:

04:48pm | 12/03/10

“Silly policies have a way of not coming to fruition”

Two pairs of words can destroy that theory and they are; Kevin Rudd and Labor Government

Angie says:

03:05pm | 12/03/10

hmmm way it is costed? like the ETS

BTW where was Sharan Burrows during the installation fiasco ?

Matt says:

12:48pm | 12/03/10

Silly policies have a way of not coming to fruition?  What planet have you been living on?

Front Row says:

06:16pm | 15/03/10

Jenny Jay -
Sorry to sound rude, but do you seriously think there are any people left in Australia who have to be “poor” and so ripped off by the ruling caste?
Checked India, or Malawi, or Sri Lanka, lately?
Australia’s middle-class self-referentialism has gone from rustic-cute to dangerous.
Let’s get with the real world.  People do not starve here - unless they, or their representatives - fail to seek the help.
That is the sort of help that our prosperous nation provides.
This country has a lot of problems, having “poor” people is one of them, but it’s nothing on a world scale - and it’s not the fault of those making a good living. People like teachers, social workers, Federal tax-assisted NFP operatives, for instance.

Othello Cat says:

11:24pm | 12/03/10

“The only difference with now was that the pay they received before the equal pay revolution of the 60s-70s was fairly appalling. “

The Harvester Decision is partially to blame for the wage disparity between men and women. While the Harvester Decision was considered a victory for the working classes by guarenteeing a wage to be paid to a man that he may be able to keep a wife and three children in “frugal comfort”, it was used as an excuse to pay women far less because women in paid work were deemed to be earning “pin-money” and that they did not deserve as much as a man because they did not have a family support.

Sophie and her ilk are pushing for a perverse variation of the Havester Decision; that any parent—male or female—is paid more than non-parents so that parents may maintain the lifestyle to which they have aspired.

“The cost of raising a child , feeding , clothing , educating , etc , is huge compared to the 70’s &  80’s .”

Nonsense. What are you feeding your kids? Caviar and truffles? A report suggested that 80% of baby clothes sold in the last year were purchased from specialist retailers and not from discount stores. The cost is only “huge” because, apparently, children “need” the hippest clothes, expensive junk food (childhood obesity epidemic anyone?)  and cafe food, and the latest gadgets.

Ella says:

02:38pm | 12/03/10

“For generations familes could live, for the most part, on one income, governments such as yours changed all that.” is pretty much a middle class myth. My Grandmother and Great Grandmother both worked outside the home, as I’m sure their forebears also did. They simply couldn’t afford not too. The only difference with now was that the pay they received before the equal pay revolution of the 60s-70s was fairly appalling.

Nicole says:

12:08pm | 12/03/10

John, once again you are right.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:50am | 12/03/10

JOHN , i can understand why BEN has taken a swipe at your comment.
At the same time , i back your view that it is better for both Mother and child for the Mother to be able to give the child her full attention. That has always been my contention and is how my wife raised our kids. However , that is no longer possible as two incomes are necessary to raise a family today.
                        John , unlike yourself , i cannot blame past governments for these changes . The changes are socio-economic.
The cost of raising a child , feeding , clothing , educating , etc , is huge compared to the 70’s &  80’s .
                        You are correct to point to crime , drug abuse , children on the streets & domestic violence etc. Education & control start in the home & the absense of a parent is high on the blame list.
                Sophie’s questioning of the absense of Burrows & Cox is right on the nail head . We all know why of course . Burrows sits somewhere to the left of Stalin & Rudd is her idol.
                What has shocked the ” screamers ” is the Liberals moving into traditional Labor voter’s zones.  Get over it !  Rudd moved into the the traditional Howard Middle income voters zone with his ” meetooism ”
                You can bet the Maternity Leave proposal will be refined & detailed into a sensible scheme in the near future, acceptable to the public & business world alike.

John A Neve says:

09:45am | 12/03/10

JH,

Nowhere have I suggested we go back to the ‘50’s or any other period.
What I said was very clear, I thought?

A close and constant mother, child relationship is surely the best for both mother and child. Further, our society is to a great extent fashioned by governments, financial pressures are also to a great extent caused by government policies.

This constant pursuit of growth only increase the presures on mothers.
I am not on about going back, rather about governments making decisions based on the long term good of this country.

Please read what I said again.

JH says:

09:26am | 12/03/10

John, society has changed. Years ago extended families lived much closer together (if you go back far enough they all lived in the same village or piece of jungle). Divorce rates were also lower. The close by extended family network was the default childcare of the day. People move more and are not around their families and there is an increasing number of single partent homes. So, looking back at 1950’s is not the solution

Jenny Jay says:

07:46am | 12/03/10

I agree John. Only a fool would not realise this is bribery from Tony Abbott, he all of a sudden cares about working familes? give me a break!!. Nothing is set in concrete in politics if this man was to be elected you may find that 6 months is gone out of the window and they will revert back to their take from the poor and give to the rich attitude. If Big buisness is forced to pay this tax (yes its a tax) inevitably we will be paying more for goods and services. If companies move offshore job losses in vast numbers will follow. Nothing is for free there is always a cost.

John A Neve says:

07:38am | 12/03/10

Ben,

I will ignore you puerile comments and just remark on the end of your post. Sadly what I write and the interpretation your mind, or lack there of puts on it, is no concern of mine.

Many people would see the past as far better than what we have now.

Ben says:

07:18am | 12/03/10

John, having read your posts over the past few months, I have bitten by tongue to reply to your often ‘kookish’ like commentary. But no more.

The premise of your comment is that a single income family is the utopian dream of the mothers and fathers of this country. Absolute BOLLOCKS! Why is it do you think that women attend university at a rate higher than men? To sit at home and read your comments on ‘The Punch’ after having a child? You’re a moron! And clearly, your misogynistic vitriol amounts to a rambling commentary that attempts to weave crime, drug abuse and general unsocial behaviour on a child spending time at childcare. What do you think school is?

Finally, check your history champ, your premise that since 1996 a single Government has forced families to have a dual income to survive is nonsense.

Highest interest rate under the Howard Govt - 10.5% (1 month after taking power).
Highest interest rate under Labor - 17.0%.

You are living in the past John.

TracyS says:

05:17pm | 20/04/10

Women may be getting more education, but men are still earning more and ending up with more superannuation…

isis says:

05:55pm | 14/03/10

My son is in post-graduate degree but I only had one so no favouritism in my house. Who are you blaming exactly, the institutions or the dysfunctional families? Men make good money from trades, eg $200 to have a $10 door fitted, so cry me a river.

Moira says:

07:24pm | 13/03/10

bhaaaaaaaaa haaaaa ha haaaaaaaaa haaa haaaaaaa!!!

former snag & a swinging voter. says:

04:21pm | 13/03/10

Persephone @ 2:05pm, No thinking, real women ever object to the term, femanazi. Does Sophie or Julia?

So, you have a house husband, which means that you are at work, while blogging all day Monday to Friday. Tell me are you Julia Gillard’s press secretary, a speech writer in the PM’s office or some other kind of red/green/labour apparatchik? How many others, are out there at taxpayers expense?

ChrisG @ 2:28, i am not angry, just getting even, for what happened to my children, after corrupt DOCS workers handed them over to known paedophiles.

The inequality you are speaking of, historically was between rich & poor. Are you seriously suggesting that universities were chock a block full of penniless, male, peasants & women were burned at the stake, for trying to enter Oxford, whether they had the fees or not?

And how do you explain 20th century Aussie, schools producing roughly equal results for girls & boys until the 60’s? With a progressive, increase in failing boys post femanazism?

The fauxmanistas, lied to you for 40 years & you fell for it.

Simon Young, you can deduce that Eric rises early, makes a couple of comments early & then goes to work, whereas persephone, etc are at it all day, every, working day while you pay for it, with your taxes.

Man up? Protecting children from abuse is what i am doing with words & action, i imagine Eric’s motivation is similar.

Paul Horn says:

11:17pm | 12/03/10

I don’t know if I am far more disgusted or aggrieved by the complete bollocks sprouting from your mouth Chris G!!! Lets get a few facts straight here my friend! Education really has only been opened up to the masses since the late 60’s or 70’s!!! Prior to that only the tiny percentage of elite folk could afford a University education.  My mother passed the 11 plus examination in the UK in the 1940’s and went to Grammar school, my father on the other hand failed and was sent to a secondary modern school. None of them ever had the opportunity to attend tertiary level education but both had the same opportunities at the secondary level. In those days women became secretaries or clerical support staff and men became tradesmen if tghey were lucky. When we talk about the gender divide in education let us be cogniscant of the fact that only an extremely small percentage of generally male students went on to tertiary education. 

And this so called injustice you speak of simply mirrored the different roles undertaken by men and women in every tribe or society known to man since time began!!! To describe it as injustice is nothing but a callous and filthy lie!!!

Oh and I suppose you have never heard of a thing called affirmative action or the many programs designed to mentor females specifically in male “dominated” areas!!!

Simon Young says:

09:42pm | 12/03/10

Eric and Former Snag you guys really are pathetic. Eric, can I deduce from the time your comment was made at 6.26am that you rise from bed early to scan the Punch online for any articles about women just for the opportunity to push your “barrow” and be the first to comment so everyone sees your opinion . Former Sang from now on we should call you “Shadow of Eric”. I dont think i need to elaborate why. You are both that predictable that I just read the headline and clicked on the link knowing that you two would be some of the first commenters on this article and you didnt let me down.
Man up boys. Stop whining about inequalities and get out there and show the world just how good men really are by your actions and not your words.

Eric says:

05:04pm | 12/03/10

Persephone: “There are scholarships - quite a considerable number of them - purely designed to attract boys to particular University subjects, with no equivalent (that I know of) for girls.”

Then let me educate you. Google “men’s scholarships Australia”. You will find a bunch of sport scholarships.

Now google “women’s scholarships Australia”. Not only will you find twice as many entries, you will also find that these scholarships are directed toward academic subjects - sciences, the arts, and so on.

The sexist distinction is clear. Men are to be used for sport, women are to be educated to think.

With such sexism in place, is it any wonder that the outcomes are so skewed?

ChrisG says:

01:28pm | 12/03/10

formersnag the swinging voter, I have disagreed with persephone elsehwere, but i am with her on this one. I can’t make up my mind whether I am more offended by your angry diatribes or moved to pity for whatever is causing your anger

let me simply say that the hundreds of years of education that you claim served women so well usually and dominantly reflected a basic limitation of life opportunities and was (and in may parts of the world still is) responsible for significant inequality. Changes in favor of equality for women in the 20th century and continuing now were starkly obvious to anyone with a knowledge of history and a sense of justice

I have put two sons through the public school system and university in the last 20 years - what you claim about crazy, male hating changes in curriculum and programs is, simply, rubbish

persephone says:

01:05pm | 12/03/10

formersnag

you will be delighted to know we went the house husband route in our household!

And phrases like feminazi etc etc won’t get you far with any thinking people at all.

formersnag the swinging voter. says:

01:02pm | 12/03/10

@ persephone, telling deliberate, premeditated, half truth, will get you nowhere fast with me, or any other sensible person who is not from the loony, left. During the 70’s & 80’s “progressive, social engineers” made changes to all, curriculum, carefully designed by radical, extremist, loony, left, femanazi, child abusers to favour, girls over boys.

Earlier “antiquated” modes of education, had produced, roughly equal results for boys and girls, but for other reasons, many girls, despite doing equally, well at school, chose, not, to seek much, further education or careers.

So when 2 or 3 decades of femanazi, boy, abuse produced, the expected results and some, mothers, complained, these evil, PC thugs set up new programs in schools, to make it look, like they were addressing, “the problem with boys” without removing their earlier anti boy discrimination program.

@ rocket surgeon, Ah, i thought, that is what Eric was doing, attempting to engage in an intelligent debate about serious, important, issues, but you, like many others, appear to be incapable of doing that. Perhaps this will help you & some others understand “what your problems” are.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/nonedarecallit_conspiracy.pdf

@ Bec, i am with you girl. As fathers, have been proven to be better at parenting than mothers. I say all fathers should be stay at home “house husbands” & all mothers should have full time, high end careers, education, the works, be ruling the world, filling all leadership positions everywhere.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016781/mum-who-gassed-kids-gets-life-sentence

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016578/nt-woman-threw-baby-onto-footpath-court

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1019682/woman-to-deny-murdering-her-twin-babies

Then we, “mere males” will complain about everything that is wrong with the world, controlled by women, while watching day time TV.

persephone says:

10:38am | 12/03/10

Tim

As someone who likes to go with the evidence, I can’t argue with the statistics!

julia says:

09:53am | 12/03/10

Yeah, I watch some advertisements, particularly the Telstra ads and the feminine hygiene ads and wonder why Gen X men aren’t more than a little angry about being portrayed as complete idiots.

If the ad industry did it to women (and they have done) they’d be screaming blue murder. And they did.

Tim says:

09:49am | 12/03/10

Persephone,
you’ve got to be kidding don’t you.
“There are scholarships - quite a considerable number of them - purely designed to attract boys to particular University subjects, with no equivalent (that I know of) for girls.”
At the university i went to there were scholarships for women, the indigenous, poor people, smart people and every other group you could think of except men. There was not one scholarship that was exclusively for men.
How could you possibly think that the education system is biased towards boys when their outcomes are so much worse?
Or are you trying to say that girls are smarter than boys? I’m shocked that you could be so discriminatory.

bec says:

07:46am | 12/03/10

I thought it was because the men were off doing the hard, dangerous, manly things, rather than doing the “soft”, unnecessary stuff at uni?

If men want the life expectancies of women, they have to start living like women.

Rocket Surgeon says:

07:23am | 12/03/10

Eric “feminists screamed”. They shouted for themselves and got their desired outcome. Get off your arse and fight for what you want and stop carrying on like a whinny baby expecting everyone else to fix your problems.

persephone says:

07:14am | 12/03/10

Nonsense. Most schools have special programs which concentrate on boys, not on girls.

There are scholarships - quite a considerable number of them - purely designed to attract boys to particular University subjects, with no equivalent (that I know of) for girls.

I have never, in thirty years of close engagement with the education system, heard of any professional development being offered to teachers to deal with ‘girl’s problems’ - every year there is some kind of program being offered for boys.

Recently, our local school rejigged their whole Year 9 program to - you guessed it - try and keep boys engaged and interested in school.

The education system was designed around boys. Studies show that teachers engage with boys in the classroom, in both negative and positive ways, for the majority of the time, with girls just being left to get on with it.

Yet girls still outperform boys, in a system which is still heavily weighted against them.

It says something about boys, that with all these structural advantages, they still can’t match it with their female peers.

(My sons both got dux of their years, but of course they’re much better raised than the average!)

formersnag & tough lover. says:

07:10am | 12/03/10

@ Eric, another valid point, well put.

Easy, peasy, Sophie, they are your mortal enemies, the communists & socialists. They will never admit you are correct about anything no matter how right you are.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-louis-nowra-better-self-germaine-greer-and-039the-female-eunuch039-2298

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/08/the-marxist-origins-of-international-womens-day/

Adam says:

06:45am | 12/03/10

Eric your comments, both this and on anotherarticle this morning are certain to have the sisterhood gunning for ya. Keep up the good work while we carriers of the y chromosome still have the right to an opinion