On Tuesday this week, 25,000 Australians delivered a clear message straight to the people who represent them in the nation’s Parliament.

With the PM on Tuesday after accepting the petition. Pic: Kym Smith

Signing a national petition, nurses, teachers, hospitality and construction workers, uni students, school kids, their mums and dads, their grandparents demanded that their elected representatives stand up and vote for the Rudd Government’s national paid parental leave scheme.

After waiting decades, working families are set to be the big winners when the Government delivers Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme and Australia finally catches up with the rest of the developed world on this vital reform.

This landmark reform gives new mothers the financial support to make their own choices about work and family responsibilities when their baby is born.

Mothers who meet the work test – who have worked for at least of 10 of the 13 months before their child is born and for around one day a week during those 10 months - will be eligible for 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage of $570 week.

Currently only half of all Australian women have access to paid parental leave, with those on low incomes most likely to miss out. For the first time, the thousands of women who are casuals, who are employed in low-paid or part-time jobs, who are self-employed, are contractors or work in seasonal jobs will have access to paid parental leave.

As one young mother told the Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave, she had no alternative other than go back to work just four weeks after the birth of each of her three children. She worked nights and weekends so her partner could be at home for the babies; for years, she said, they were like ships passing in the night.

For mums and dads like this, our scheme eases the financial pressure. It also expands their choices, offering them the option to share the leave so they can choose what works best for their family.
Of course everyone knows that hard work comes with the territory whether you’re a mum going out to work or at home with the kids. This is why we support families through a range of payments including the Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefits A and B as well as our paid parental leave scheme.

We also know how important it is for workforce participation and national productivity for women to stay connected to the workforce while they are having their children. This is why new mothers will receive their government-funded parental leave pay through their employer on their regular pay day.  We will continue to work with employers to minimise the scheme’s impact on them and to make implementation as simple as possible. Employers know paid parental leave helps them retain their staff; it makes good business sense. Some have already indicated they plan to use the government-funded scheme to complement their own schemes and give their employees greater choice.

For 12 years, the Liberals in government not only denied Australians the benefits of paid parental leave, they actively railed against it. Opposition leader Tony Abbott said paid parental leave would only ever happen over his dead body.

Now he’s talking about rolling out a sham scheme that will hit business with a massive hike in the company tax rate. Under the Liberals, company tax will increase to 31.7 per cent. Under Labor, company tax will drop to 28 per cent.  The Liberals’ tax hike will flow through and hit families with higher grocery prices.  And it won’t let mums and dads make their own work and family choices.  Under the Liberals’ scheme mothers won’t be allowed to transfer their leave.

Tony Abbott just doesn’t understand the reality of life for Australian working families and the different choices different families make raising their kids.

He still doesn’t understand what Australian families want and what this Government has delivered – a national, government-funded paid parental leave scheme that’s fair for families and fair to business.

Most commented

64 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:04am | 17/06/10

      You call it “parental leave”, but you only talk about mothers.

      Are there no male parents?

    • persephone says:

      07:58am | 17/06/10

      Yes, there are Eric, and the parental payment is designed so that either or both can have 18 weeks leave - so, for example, mum can take 14 weeks and dad four.

      It’s also designed around the assumption that parents who want their child to have 6 months worth of parental care will make use of their annual leave to achieve this - so 18 weeks government, 4 weeks mum’s annual leave, 4 weeks dad’s.

      The legislation factors in both parents taking responsibility for the raising of their children.

    • KH says:

      08:36am | 17/06/10

      Presumably the fathers would be entitled to claim if they are stopping work to look after the baby.  Why both parents would be doing that at the same time for the small amount of leave payment is a mystery to me, but anyway…...........  The mother usually is the one to stop work because she is the one who has just had the equivalent of a roast chicken pulled through a nostril.  If she has been particularly unlucky, a caesarian, or worse, the dreaded episiotomy - which takes six or more weeks to recover from.  Apparently there is little common sense here at the Punch today…....

    • Moi says:

      09:32am | 17/06/10

      excellent point Eric, can’t believe I’m agreeing with you but it’s obvious isn’t it? I guess by calling the scheme “parental” leave the Government are hopeful that fathers will embrace care work in the same way women have embraced paid work.  It’s good to be optimistic, and inclusive.  The gendered representations of this debate in the media (over the last 12 months) have been proscriptive and divisive.  Not all women want to ‘stay at home’ and not all men want to be the breadwinner.  The scheme needed to be called ‘parental’ leave I just wish that the media (and in this case the government’s representative) would quit discussing the issue JUST in relation to mothers.

    • Tim says:

      11:36am | 17/06/10

      Please,
      they can try to include men all they want by calling it parental leave, but we are talking about paid maternity leave plain and simple.

    • jess says:

      09:16am | 18/06/10

      I’m starting to think that Eric actually works for the newspaper and one of his duties is to Troll (a person who posts deliberately provocative messages to message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument) just to keep the comments flowing.

      He’s always first in and his comments are generally ridiculous in the context of the article.

    • jesscar says:

      09:25am | 18/06/10

      Well Eric, sorry to bring in some logic to the conversation, but the woman *is* the one giving birth and are generally are not allowed to return to the work force for 4-6 weeks minimum. So yes it is going to benefit mothers in the first instance.

      After this initial time men can take up this option, but the reality is that although men have the same rights as women in regards to unpaid and paid parental leave, very few actually decided to take it up. You dont find a lot of dad’s happy to spend all day every day being vomited on, changing nappies and not getting a moment to themselves.

      Some do, and applause to them, but until we’re up to at least 20% stay at home dads, I dont see a problem with people generally referring to women with the scheme.

    • Aitch B says:

      06:45am | 17/06/10

      Arrgh!!

      “working families” early in the article….... could Labor PLEASE come up with some other catchphrase…. it’s been flogged to death and is a total turn off!!

    • Norma says:

      08:18am | 17/06/10

      “working families” is entirely correct in the context of this legislation.
      You are correct in stating the phrase a “turn off” though, because it has been used so often by so many when not appropriate.
      Jenny, you need a new phrase unfortunately.

    • NEFFA says:

      10:41am | 17/06/10

      I agree, it is counter-productive for them as i read that and tuned straight out. Its time to move on Labor.
      Also, unless they have the kids are working in the mines or making nike shoes, then then the family isn’t working, only mum and/or dad.

    • Grumpy Gran says:

      08:43am | 17/06/10

      I’ll be employing grandmothers as soon as this legislation is in place as it is too generous.

    • stephen says:

      11:18am | 17/06/10

      If yer do Mr. Grumpy, it’ll be byo teeth at your place.
      And make sure they don’t wear their shorts.

    • Gerry says:

      09:01am | 17/06/10

      What about “non-working” people - you know the unfortunate hundreds of thousands who did not CHOOSE to be unemployed but find themselves in this situation through the actions of others. When are you going to do something actually meaningful and helpful for these Australians ?

    • NEFFA says:

      10:47am | 17/06/10

      ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

    • j says:

      09:28am | 18/06/10

      Those people get the baby bonus, so dont worry - still a tax payer hand out that they probably dont deserve.

      If you’r unemployed (“through the actions of others” or otherwise) should you really be having kids anyway???

    • AdamC says:

      09:11am | 17/06/10

      Australia catching up to the rest of the world (i.e, Europe)? There goes the neighbourhood. Are we going to follow our cultured betters back ‘home’ too when they fall off the fiscal precipice? All the cool kids are doing it, after all.

      Talk about ‘political cringe’ Jenny.

      And given ‘working families’ (retch) have been waiting ‘decades’ for a parental leave scheme, I guess the silver bodgie and the musical also dropped the ball on it.

    • Proudly Nullagravidae says:

      06:39pm | 17/06/10

      Well said Adam. Those nations in Europe are now winding back taxpayer funded cash handouts. Spain has cancelled its baby bonus.

      So Australia is “catching up” with the other nations that offer PPL? So does that mean that paid parental leave will be actually self-funded by an insurance scheme by parents themselves? Or perhaps an income-contingent loan that parents pay back to the government? Or an earned entitlement; that is accumulated pro-rata like sick or recreational leave and not just a welfare handout? These are the models used in The Rest of The World (tm).

      Before the paid parental leave scheme, the squirming and inconvenient truth is that Australia had the second highest cash handouts (as a proportion of GDP) to people with children among OECD nations (after Luxembourg). One blogger for the Australian wrote “Australia ranks sixth among rich nations in the share of national income it spends on family policy. And it directs more of its social spending to families than any other developed country”.

      Even the Productivity Commission’s government-instigated inquiry into PPL noted that criticisms of Australia’s lack of paid parental leave among developed nations was a “semantic distinction” and noted Australia already had very generous cash handouts and subsidies for households with children that were ” ...are generous by OECD standards”.

      With any luck, a future government will see the folly of this taxpayer-funded middle class welfare largesse. One needs to look only at the policy evolutions of unsustainable free University education and age pension which have both moved to a user-pays models; HECS and compulsory superannuation. If these social welfare institutions can be self-funded, then expect PPL to head in this direction within a decade.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:20am | 17/06/10

      Pathetic.

      Instead of REAL tax reform this is the best Labor can come up with?

      Why not do something brave like introduce income-splitting or working spouse tax concessions?.

      Not your party’s style though is it.

      Pretty good with the spin though.

    • zoe says:

      02:18pm | 17/06/10

      Absolutely Margaret, , income splitting makes much more sense and would actually give real choice, and you could potentially do away with all the mismatch of FTB and baby bonus and save on administration on ridiculous policies.

    • Proudly Nullagradivia says:

      06:16pm | 17/06/10

      Income splitting? Sure. So that means that spouses are prepared to take on responsiblities for their partner’s HECS debt and any other tax liabilities?

      Didn’t think so! This is just another social-engineering idea that financially/fiscally favours certain household arrangements—married people— and forces others to pick up the tab.

      The best way to save on adminstration would be to end all childed-household oriented handouts and, instead, spend that money on social services such as better obstetrics, natal care, children’s schools and education. But no. The subtext here is “hear that non-married scum! Take a tax hike to help your social betters. Those holidays, McMansions, private school fees and luxury cars aren’t going to pay for themselves. Give the rich a leg up, it’s all about choice!”

      Oh—BTW—I am married.

    • J says:

      09:36am | 18/06/10

      Thats funny Proudly Nullagradivia. I didnt realise you had to be married to have a baby raspberry

      In fact most people I know with babies have never been married.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      04:19pm | 18/06/10

      H—the point I am making—“I am married” —is that, even though I would be a beneficary of such a system, I reject it because I have an empathy for the victims of an unfair system, as opposed to those people who think that sacrifices are an anathema and Government must provide comfort to those who want it all.

      Income splitting would favour married couples with or without children and unfairly burden singles (childless or single parents). Income splitting is just a tax break for coupledom. Compared to an individual on the same income, the direct beneficiary of income splitting faces a lower tax rate, while *also* benefitting from unpaid for (and thus untaxed) services provide by his (normally) spouse.

    • acker says:

      09:29am | 17/06/10

      I’m still amazed something like this was not tied into a superannuation like scheme where the women who have babies access the money and those that don’t leave it in the superannuation account. My kids are teenagers so I am cynical about this scheme and the baby payments, it seems to be government largesse in my eyes.

    • nosthow says:

      09:36am | 17/06/10

      Well done to the Rudd government. Thank god we didnt wait for hopeless Tony Abbott to work out his “secret” plan. I think he was very relieved that the Rudd government actually had a plan that would work because his didnt !

    • emma says:

      10:26am | 17/06/10

      I do not like the paid parental leave scheeme. It makes it harder for females of child bearing age to get a job. It puts pressure on women to return to work after only six months of parenting. It seems that the only choices that are respected are those of the working mother. It appears to help you stay at home without really allowing you to do so.

    • BW says:

      12:40pm | 17/06/10

      Well spotted Emma - the scheme is a sop to the working women’s lobby, who are not representative of the interests of parents and families. PPL is simply a bribe to force women back into the workforce instead of supporting other choices, such as actually taking care of your own children full time. PPL is built on questionable economic assumptions, whilst more important social and family considerations are ignored.

    • Ish says:

      02:39pm | 17/06/10

      @ emma I don’t think that’s correct at all. I’ve been asked by prospective employers if I’m intending on going off and having a baby, some of my friends have been asked as well and this is well before this scheme has come in. They shouldn’t do it but employers are always going to wonder. I’m honest with my intentions, my current employer knows that I’m intent on having another bub, they also know that I intend on using the leave payments then returning to work soon after and everyone’s happy with this arrangement.

      I don’t see how this is going to be detrimental. Employers don’t have to pay for it, and parents get a leg up while they take time off work.

      And as for your comment about this only helping working mothers, stay at home mums are still eligible for the baby bonus.

      @ BW what are your suggestions? Should the government be paying people to stay at home full time indefinitely? With the cost of living these days most families need 2 incomes.

    • BW says:

      04:32pm | 17/06/10

      Ish, you raise a pertinent point. Incidentally, Abbott has already identified the need for two incomes to service a home loan to justify his own scheme. The problem is not, however, the lost second income, which PPL seeks to redress. The real problem is that it takes two incomes to service a home loan in the first place. PPL further entrenches the inequitable contemporary economic assumption of dual income, forever sqeezing single income familes, including single parents, and low income workers, out of the housing market. For all the supposed economic benefits of PPL, it actually adds to the existing economic problem. The heart of that problem is housing affordability. The government throwing additional money at already well-off Australians will only make it worse.

    • DJ says:

      10:26am | 17/06/10

      I’m sorry one day a week for 10 months? NO, there is no way casual workers should get it, they don’t get sick or annual leave why should they get PPL? I was under the impression that it was for those of us that work 5 or 6 days a week for 8.5 hours a day and pay the taxes? how much tax do the casual workers pay? really? their one day a week against my 6? and they get paid at a higher rate than me

    • Sarah says:

      12:20pm | 17/06/10

      Perhaps you should give up your annual leave and sick leave too, then you can paid a higher rate as well!

    • DJ says:

      03:45pm | 17/06/10

      I don’t care that they get more an hour as I get sick and annual which I enjoy having, but if your a casual employee who gets no other benefits ie sick or annual then i am sorry but no PPL.

    • Ph says:

      08:02pm | 17/06/10

      I assume that you support a higher casual rate then.

    • pc says:

      10:46am | 17/06/10

      Hi Jenny

      The many mothers and fathers that work and have children - whats a simple description for those people - Oh its working families. So much for the anti rudds love of simple language - will be grateful for this legislation. It will have real meaning for their lives and is worth more than any ad campaign or political advertisement. People tend to know reality when they live it. Unlike our friends in the coalition who excel at living unreality.

      “Opposition leader Tony Abbott said paid parental leave would only ever happen over his dead body.” (Im pretty sure he’s still alive. Someone should check his pulse though.)

      Just like he said “climate change was crap” and then said “Oh I believe in climate change.”

      Just like he said he didnt support stimulus and then said “but we supported the stimulus”

      Tony “Im into reverse psychology” Abbott.

    • NEFFA says:

      10:56am | 17/06/10

      So 25,000 australians signed this petition out of 20 odd million of us and thats a majority? really?
      i am so anti paid parental leave i can’t even put my feelings into words.
      the only thing i can do is let my vote speak for me, unfortunately i can’t vote Liberal as they are on a “me too” wicket, the greens are on mars, so what am i left with?
      who wants my vote?

    • Tim says:

      11:40am | 17/06/10

      Yay,
      more money for “working families”.
      No need to worry about taking responsibility for your own life choices, the government is here to take care (pay) for them.
      Sucked in singles and childless couples, you get to pay for it. Again.

    • N says:

      01:08pm | 17/06/10

      Agree 100% with you Tim. I’m tired of funding “working families” because of their inadequate life style decisions and poor planning. Australian parents of the 20th century must have been an entirely different breed; somehow my folks had my brother and I without a paid parental scheme, my friends parents managed to pull off a similar feat. 

      Combine this paid parental scheme with the proposed RSPT, and you have a government who is clearly playing up to an undercurrent of bludgers who quite obviously feel because they live in the lucky country, they deserve everything for nothing.

    • KH says:

      03:03pm | 17/06/10

      Here we go again - more welfare, for people who are earning salaries now! Where does it stop? Where is all this money coming from? What happened to personal responsibility?  You make choices in life, so you pay for them.  This just makes me feel ill, and certainly does not inspire me to vote this government back in.

    • pc says:

      12:38pm | 17/06/10

      Hi Tim

      Wow. You must move in a big circle of relationships. And by responsibilities I suppose you dont mean rearing, nurturing or educating children. I realise it might be difficult for you to remember Tim but at some stage you too were a child. Clearly not a very likeable or popular one but a child nonetheless. (Perhaps you still are. Perhaps if you cared a bit more about your friends and family they might care more about you. Unlikely but possible)

    • Sandra says:

      10:45pm | 17/06/10

      pc, when Tim was a child he probably had the same life that I had a child and most of my generation. My parents had a modest home. They realised that having children meant sacrificing the luxuries. Unlike modern families, we did not “need” a single bedroom for every child, a second bathroom, weekly restuarant meals, yearly holidays away, two late model cars, the latest must-have gadgets or the lastest fashion. Parents seems unconcerned with inflating their personal wealth with taxpayers’ money. The realised that thei children were their own reward.

      When I was a child “caring for children” happened but it was not based a cold financial calculation. These days, having a child is some perverse lottery win. A baby is a big fat bundle of cash and a unquestionable right for parents to whine “what can I get?”

      “Perhaps if you cared a bit more about your friends and family they might care more about you. Unlikely but possible) “

      Classic argumentum ad hom. Check the child abuse stats pc; you can then revise your |parents = good/childless = bad| manta.

    • JENC says:

      12:38pm | 17/06/10

      now that family and parenthood has become work. i want to know who will be setting the KPIs for parents.
      I think it should work along the lines of the dole, so parents will have to go into centrelink for a monthly “one on one” session with their new boss and advise how they have been going. i think centrelink should be setting KPI’s for the “working families” and stay in contact with the babys pediatrician to make sure they are reaching all of their weight and growth goals.
      They will also have to take away access to facebook and other websites that will distract them from their work.
      Now that “my taxes are paying their wages” i feel i need to know the moneys not going to waste

    • DJ says:

      03:47pm | 17/06/10

      I agree and if they are not ‘performing’ properly as expected send them for ‘training’ (parenting training would be good for some) to boost their performance in their ‘department’

    • pc says:

      01:32pm | 17/06/10

      Hi Tim and N

      It seems most aystralian taxpayers and voters understand that this is an investment in not just their friends and families future but their childrens future. You guys probably hadnt noticed the declining birth rate but clearly breeding in the 20th century was more popular than in the 21st.  This cannot be because we are bludgers as we are working longer for longer than ever before. Jenny gives us an example

      “As one young mother told the Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave, she had no alternative other than go back to work just four weeks after the birth of each of her three children. She worked nights and weekends so her partner could be at home for the babies; for years, she said, they were like ships passing in the night. “

      Im not sure if you guys are indifferent to the facts or merely indifferent.

    • Tim says:

      03:36pm | 17/06/10

      PC,
      what has this got to do with their own choices?
      Maybe young Jenny should have thought about how she was going to look after her children before she had not one, not two but three children.
      If you want babies, then save up and have them.
      You talk about the declining birth rate but what has this got to do with this issue?

      If population growth is so important, then we should be increasing the migrant intake instead of paying people to fund their life choices.

    • NEFFA says:

      03:42pm | 17/06/10

      PC explain to me how family back in the day were able to raise families of anywhere up to 10 kids with no parental leave, but modern parents are “struggling” to raise 1 or 2. whats changed? consumerism thats what. If the above mentioned young mother gave away the xbox, the internet, foxtel and all the other crap modern parents waste their money on maybe she wouldnt be struggling so much.

    • N says:

      03:49pm | 17/06/10

      PC; Nice emotive piece quoted there from Jenny, I must be a callous bastard, because I still don’t see the reason for PPL. Going back to work 4 weeks after having each of her children, was a personal choice that mother made. If both parents had to work under such constraints to raise enough capital to support a family, then the principal question needs to be asked, “Why have a child in the first place?”

      PPL lets prospective parents throw caution and consideration to the wind because they can fall back on the public to pay for their choice. Its breeding a society of welfare dependants.

    • DJ says:

      03:50pm | 17/06/10

      How can we have a declining birth rate in this country? 4 people in my office are pregnant, 3 have recently given birth and the amount of pregnant people and new mums pushing prams around the city and in the burbs would tend to contradict that, where are we declining? is it possible to outsource our need for more children from Africa/China/India? I sure we can pay a fee and have them over here, better than there?

    • Nicole says:

      04:47pm | 17/06/10

      pc, if you’re going to have a child, you should be responsible. It’s got me tossed how I’ve raised three children without this PPL, and on one wage. My parents raised five children with no PPL also. I’m sick to death of this gimme gimme attitude. You want kids, you should pay for them. Simple really.

    • Sandra says:

      10:58pm | 17/06/10

      pc, I wish someone had “invested” in your education and taught you punctuation, spelling and grammar. They also could have explained to you that, in a mature discussion, anecdote does not equal data. Presenting a single story is not a “fact”. 

      Indeed, an analysis of the single scenario you presented undermines your position. The person you presented has had three children in spite of no paid parental leave. So that does not support a claim to “birth rate decline”. As for “children’s future”, there is nothing in the story to suggest that her children’s future had been compromised. Indeed the children still had a parent with them and the family remains intact. The only thing that had changed was *her* perception of her relationship of her husband. It was all about her, not her kids.

      You, sir/madam, are the one who is indifferent to the facts.

    • Christian Real says:

      06:37am | 21/06/10

      Nicole
      For once I agree with you, because you are right in what you have written, Our parents, our ancestors got by and raised their children without PPL also
      My dad’s Grandfather and mother raised a family of 12 without PPL or the baby bonus that the mothers get showered with today for raising their children.
      No Government should take responsibility for parents having a family,by giving them all these handouts.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:48pm | 17/06/10

      Work harder all you singles and childless couples, it’s another piece of middle class welfare to pay for….

    • orwell was right says:

      03:27pm | 17/06/10

      Why should the state pay for anybody to have children?
      It is simply absurd.
      The whole “cash for kids” welfare approach needs to be scrapped. It may also deter the ever growing “breeding classes” to stop having so many offspring. Paid parental leave is just more socialist poison. And child support should be REDUCED the more children you have. Not increased. We have nothing but a nanny welfare state mentality - how about personal responsibility for our choices?

    • who cares says:

      03:32pm | 17/06/10

      Yet another example of Kevin’s hyperbolic approach to announcing change.
      Woopeeeeedoooooda.
      What a bunch of socialist muppets.

    • Press says:

      03:58pm | 17/06/10

      Socialist muppets, eh. Sure. That’d be all the middle-income people who took Costello’s baby bonus, would it, muppet?

    • Sandra says:

      03:51pm | 29/06/10

      ...and it would also be the weathiest families in Australia who, during the 05-06 FY, gleefully grabbed Howard-Costello’s handouts to the tune of $100 million. (Can cite source)

      That could have been 10,000 hospital bed-nights or 100km of paved freeway with lighting rather than designer back-packs, ski trips and eternity rings.

    • Adam Diver says:

      04:34pm | 17/06/10

      “Currently only half of all Australian women have access to paid parental leave” that seems like a very high percentage. Onewould assume the issue is not that great with stats like that.

    • Population Pooper says:

      04:56pm | 17/06/10

      PPL is far too generous - as is the baby bonus for a third child.  When the planet has doubled it’s p;opulation, we sill be paying people not to have children.

    • Heff says:

      06:53pm | 17/06/10

      The rest of the world is broke, wanna catch up to them as well?  How about we stop dishing out the welfare nilly willy and stop throwing away taxpaper money. The way you guys spend the $$ we will be broke in no time and then you will start stealing money from others such as smokers, drinkers, miners etc…. oh wait you are already.

    • Daniel says:

      07:38pm | 17/06/10

      This kind of thing should have been done over 20 years ago

    • Timmo says:

      12:19am | 18/06/10

      Don’t tell us all that Kevin did something good for parents. Well I wonder how many of you prospective parents who write in here against Rudd will be refusing to accept your parental leave entitlements to show solidarity for your negative viewpoints. Yes, i wonder who will be the first running to the welfare line with their greedy hands out. The ones who hate Rudd and Co. will be there first that’s for sure. I can see their dribbling heads getting into the feeding frenzy now. What will be happening in the old bedroom tonight, a bit of pro-creating I think. Oh god help us all, not more of them. And they get paid for it.

    • pellie says:

      01:13am | 18/06/10

      Ludicrous money go round.

      It’s time parents paid for their own children. If you want a family, you pay for them. Part of the madness of this extraordinary welfare ‘merry-go-round’ is the employment of an army of administrators to make it work.

    • Joe says:

      04:12am | 18/06/10

      Jenny are you saying that school children also signed your petition? I thought you had to be able to vote…

      Why are you rewarding those who rush back to work and farm out their childcare and already get generous childcare benefits? This is a disgrace of social engineering. All done so more people can work to pay off your big gov. debts. The real debt will be the children who have the debt of their parent not being there for them.

    • ant says:

      03:46pm | 18/06/10

      Well, since single income people can’t afford a home any more, they might as well use their money to subsidise Working Families. It’s not like they have anything important to do with their money, now housing’s out of reach.

      Every time I hear “working families”, I remember that, sometime this decade, maybe when the Baby Bonus appeared, I became a second class citizen.

      I’m voting for the Stable Population Party. They’re against handouts for having kids.

    • Paul Collins says:

      12:00am | 21/06/10

      Stable Population? Really does no-one here under demographics? The delusions run deep…

      Ok. 4.9 million boomers was not normal, happened around the world and caused a ‘bulge’ so big that it created an economy.
      in 1970 and if you were 40, then the majority of the population were younger than you. In 2010 as a 40 year old the majority of Australians are older than you and by 2050 as a 40 year old the majority of Australians will once again be younger. Back to the way it was and will be again. Sorry about that, spend some time in gapminder.org and look at the stats!

      On the PPL, is is simply social engineering to bring our below sustainable fertility rates up, or we are all stuffed…. 2.2 is the goal to sustain Australia at all!
      boom(ers), buy, build, bang and then bye…
      bang being the property bubble that is about to burst. On the bubble it is necessary, by definition, to also have mass delusion…

      In God we trust, all others must bring data.

      PS. I do not work for the govt or any political party and yes, I am a boomer.

    • NOT delusional, realistic says:

      01:10pm | 19/06/12

      @Paul Collins - Are you aware that Gen X is bigger than the baby boomer generation, and Gen Y is bigger than Gen X?
      You have fallen lock, stock and barrel for the ‘ageing crisis’ myth!

      And to clarify, the STABLE POPULATION PARTY supports the baby bonus and paid parental leave, but only for the first two children. After that (replacement fertility), taxpayers should not be subsidised to have more.

      In a finite world, you can’t grow forever.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter