When Tony Abbott announced his paid parental leave policy on Monday, I – like many of those at the International Women’s Day celebration hosted by Manly Council – was taken by surprise. For the 15 minutes before he took my place on the podium, I had been speaking about the challenges Australia faces in creating a society that better values children, and in particular the need to better support the critical dual contribution of mothers in exercising their skills within the workplace and nurturing the next generation of Australians at home. 

Mums the word: Abbott should be commended for his conversion to the cause. Photo: James Elsby

Much has been written this week around the pros and cons of Tony’s policy, most of it scathing and very little of it constructive. What impressed me were his opening remarks that seem to have been lost amid the frenzied discussion his announcement generated in the media.

Having been associated with the infamous statement back in 2002 that compulsory paid maternity leave would be introduced ‘over this government’s dead body’, I was heartened to hear Tony’s admission that he had since learnt, from research and a variety of sources close to him, the critical importance of the early years and the attachment of mother and baby in laying the foundations for the social and economic future of the nation.

Moments before, I had concluded my address by quoting Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank (and also a visitor to Sydney that day), who suggested that his greatest challenge over the last 30 years was in ‘changing the mindset of people’. To be witness to such a powerful example of this in action was fascinating to say the least.

And yet, as is so often the case in this country, the politics of the situation has since obscured the inherent value I took from that day – the importance of moving to a paradigm of evidence-based policy that puts the wellbeing of our children and families firmly at the centre.

It is no coincidence that those countries that have adhered to this principle and that have implemented the most generous paid parental leave policies (such as the Nordic countries) are those that exhibit the highest rates of educational achievement, health and wellbeing within their population. A powerful lesson for a country such as Australia, where almost half of the working age population are deemed by the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council to be functionally illiterate in meeting the demands of work and life in a modern economy.

Big business has vehemently defended the importance of maintaining international economic competitiveness in criticising their role in the proposed policy, but this neglects the simple fact borne out by evidence that a strong economy depends on a strong society, with the family unit at its core.

If we were serious about laying the foundations for a prosperous Australia, supporting parents to provide quality early childhood experiences for their kids would be the most logical and cost-effective place to start. We might see different groups recognising paid parental leave policies as a critical imperative, a shared responsibility, rather than a burden that is continuously passed around in deciding who should foot the bill.

And we might even begin imagining a situation where, as in Sweden, business and government work together to provide an unparalleled 16 months paid parental leave, of which at least 2 months is set aside for the father to become more closely involved in raising the child.

When the global financial crisis hit, taxpayers (through government) were forced to foot the bills resulting from the excesses of the business world because it was ‘for the good of the nation’. Why is this situation any different? Australia is facing a social crisis that has its roots in poor early childhood and family experiences, played out every day in the shocking stories of abuse, bullying and the appalling revelation that suicide is now the number one killer of Australians under 35. According to the preliminary findings of Australia’s inaugural national values survey conducted by the Barrett Values Centre, people have identified a significant gap between the current and their desired societal values, and have reported a high level of ‘entropy’ indicating widespread disillusionment and a desire for social change.

Such a change is generational, and must begin with demonstrating how we as a nation value children, through the policies that support working parents, through the values that we seek to live by, through the duty of care that schools have in providing safe environments to learn, and through the willingness of all organisations and institutions to contribute their time, talent and dollars in creating a more caring and cohesive community.

As research has made clear, no-one at any level of society – rich or poor – benefits when a significant proportion of the population faces a situation where having the time and resources to raise children becomes a luxury, not a necessity.

If we have learnt anything from the global financial crisis, it is that the values that led us into that situation need considerable reassessment. We need to follow the lead of Nelson Mandela’s assertion that ‘There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than how it treats its children’ and begin to change the mindset that fails to see the interconnectedness of the multiple social and economic challenges we now face.

This means elevating the discussion above the personalities and politics that encourage a piecemeal, partisan approach to progress, so that we might concentrate instead on the longer and infinitely more valuable journey of putting children and families back at the centre of our national agenda.

Most commented

39 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • persephone says:

      07:04am | 12/03/10

      No, Tony Abbott has learnt nothing.

      He doesn’t need to, because he gets told by God (well, Archbishop Pell) everything he needs to know.

      His change of heart is easily explained: he has a problem with the women’s vote and he’s trying to get back in the limelight.

      Don’t be fooled into thinking this is some kind of conversion to the cause.

    • Sherlock says:

      08:30am | 12/03/10

      Really? The funny thing is that it’s Kevin Rudd who is constantly giving TV interviews outside church on Sunday morning and numerous other occasions.

      Yet for some reason that doesn’t appear to bother you. However the fact that Tony Abbott has faith really seems to get up your nose.

      I find the fact that despite both leaders being committed Christians it’s only one that appears to trouble you rather puzzling.

    • persephone says:

      09:44am | 12/03/10

      Because there is evidence (you know, actually factual stuff) that demonstrates that when Rudd feels his religious beliefs are clouding his political judgment, he stands aside from the decision making process - as he did during the argument on stem cell research, for example.

      On the other hand, there is no evidence that Tony Abbott is capable of doing this. If anything - as in the case of the RU486 debate - he lets his religion dictate his politics.

      As far as I’m concerned, there’s no reason why someone with strong religious beliefs shouldn’t be in politics, as long as they realise that these beliefs are their own and don’t let them get in the way of good public policy.

    • Sherlock says:

      10:11am | 12/03/10

      What? Are you so seriously deluded that you think that allowing women to abort a foetus by simply popping a pill is a religious issue? I’m not a person of faith but there is a fair possibility that I would have voted against the bill.

      Abbott has also previously indicated that he believes a discussion on the abortion issue is warranted. When we have tens of thousands of abortions a year and yet a decade plus waiting list for adoption then I think there may be some wiggle room on the subject.

      I think your worries about Abbotts religious beliefs are just an excuse for partisanship

    • persephone says:

      10:56am | 12/03/10

      Well, it was for Tony.

      He relentlessly kept pushing for the ban to be upheld - in the end, Howard had to step in to diffuse the situation.

      And Tony only invites debates when he thinks they’ll give him an opportunity to pontificate and play Captain Catholic.

    • Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

      03:46pm | 12/03/10

      Persephone I truly feel very sorry for you & those around you, bitterness & hatred will cause you distress for no reason. What has the Honorable Mr. Tony Abbott done to you personally that you need to spew forth such bile? ? Did he beat you at marbles when you were a child, or is it that he is the man that you can never be. A WISE man/woman will always be ready to listen to a sound argument, then after examining the data, change his/her mind. A FOOL never does.

    • luke09 says:

      04:46pm | 12/03/10

      persephone, so in you’re own words, no one is allowed to change their mind, regardless.  So in your own words, Kevin Rudd is wrong then to halt the insulation scheme which killed, burned houses and sent businesses to the verge of bankruptcy.  rolleyes

    • persephone says:

      05:42pm | 12/03/10

      That’s bile??

      Good lord, you must come from a wussy neighbourhood.

      Sherlock’s the one slinging around personal insults here. I don’t catch you taking him up on them.

    • Peter says:

      12:23pm | 15/03/10

      I wonder what Tony Abbott’s next “housewife” comment will cost the taxpayer? No doubt, more money thrown at the femmes will aliviate any offence they must have felt… Funny thing is though, most housewives wouldn’t even be in this debate, they are at home happily looking after their families (on one income) and not asking for hand outs. It’s these working femmes with too much time and money on their hands feeling a sense of resentment that other people aren’t giving them more of their money. And it’s these types who look down on their fellow sisters who choose just to be mums and not ask for handouts…

    • Adam says:

      07:28am | 12/03/10

      Nice Piece, I too thought it funy to see the coalition attacked so strongly for putting society before business which over the last decade it has been attacked for not doing. You are damned if you do and damned if you dont.

      Personally I think everyone should pay. The minimum wage that the government has put forward, plus a scheme similar to superannuation (that was mentioned on the punch) plus a small levy on business.

      The biggest issue is allowing parents to leave the workforce for 6 months and then just walk back into thier job. It creates the largest burden of all on businesses and I cant think of a fair solution for it.

    • lo and behold says:

      08:11am | 12/03/10

      The GFC was caused by the excesses of the consumer world, not the business world. Please do some research into this http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/16/business/16primer.span.ready.html 
      http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/?print=true

      Having children is not a right or a service to the community. It is a choice made by the parents. The parents should also foot the bill instead of bludging off the rest of society.

      It is not like superannuation where instead of relying on the pension (taxpayer money) 9% of your salary is put into an investment scheme to provide for your retirement.

      You make a choice to have children. Every choice involves sacrificing one thing in order to have another. Having children is expensive. You must accept this and ensure that you can fund it yourself. Having children will also require time to do. Time you cannot be doing anything else. Therefore your career should necessarily be put on the back-burner.

      If you are not willing to make these sacrifices then do not have children. It’s not a right that you deserve

    • DG says:

      08:26am | 12/03/10

      “When the global financial crisis hit, taxpayers (through government) were forced to foot the bills resulting from the excesses of the business world because it was ‘for the good of the nation’. Why is this situation any different?”

      It’s not any different. People complained about the bailout as well.

      The point is that it is not democratic. If you are in favour of democracy - where the electorate get to choose on these issues (giving a government a “mandate” on an issue), you can not possibly support a government which forces the majority of the population to do something against their will.

      Personally I think that democracy is a farce - it is slow and cumbersome (getting the people to grant a mandate) yet is incapable of planning beyond the next election due to the short memory of the electorate. But we live in a democracy, so those are the rules we have to play by.

      If Abbott wants to make changes that he knows the majority of the population don’t want he needs to have the courage to stand up and say “I don’t believe in democracy. I believe in doing whatever I think is right”.

      Some people will respect him for that, personally I would respect his honesty (even if I disagree with his policy). A politician with the guts to stand up and say “I know better than you lot, Things are going to change” would be a breath of fresh air. However, given that it is Abbott and I don’t like the general flavour of his political ideology I’d rather it was Rudd that made the statement, but there you have it.

      “...he had since learnt, from research and a variety of sources close to him, the critical importance of the early years and the attachment of mother and baby in laying the foundations for the social and economic future of the nation.”

      No one is doubting the importance of parents actually being parents. I think many would suggest that this is preferable to hiring out parental duties to the most financially viable option. The reason the press haven’t been on this issue is that there is little debate. Children belong in a loving, caring environment - everyone agrees. 

      The question is whether tax payers should fund it, or whether we should really only be encouraging those with the intellect and foresight to plan ahead, to propagate the next generation.

      The position against tax-payer funded maternity leave is one of choice and responsibility rather than one of ignorance. That is, if you choose to have kids - you choose to pay for them. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.

      The super scheme proposal as I suggested on Wednesday, and was again raised in yesterday’s article by Julia Thornton would address this issue. This isn’t a debate about the fundamental right to education, health care and the likes where it is understandable that the community has to pay - this is about the choice to have children, and taking financial responsibility for that decision.

      The suggestion that having the time to raise a child is a “luxury” is a demonstration of the changing values of the community. There are plenty of people would rather be at work, earning money to buy a bigger house than have children. Now you, as an individual have a choice. You can compete with those people, in the real estate/material market or you can have a family.

      Me, I plan on having a family so I purchased a small house, a long way from work, that we can fund on one income. I don’t have a huge income, but we have managed our affairs to make sure that we can support our lifestyle on one income so that we can have children, and that we can actually raise our child(ren). I spend more than 3 hours a day commuting, that’s the price I pay so that we can afford to have children when we decide to. It’s called planning ahead. We decided not to compete with those that have chosen career over family (as is their right) and instead to set our selves on the path to building a family.

      Children and families are on the national agenda - people are choosing how they want to live their life - and an increasing number are choosing a life doesn’t include kids. Good for them.

    • Bitten says:

      10:56am | 12/03/10

      DG bravo for raising the true problem at the heart of this issue - the fact that both sides of politics are arrogantly denying the public democratic due process and instead are pressing forward with policies for no other reason than that ‘they sound good to the media’.

    • Mother Goose says:

      11:13am | 12/03/10

      DG, what a refreshing outlook on this tippy toe subject. I believe if you want children you ensure you get your house in order beforehand. Why should there be an expectation that the taxpayers will fund the child’s upbringing and the mother’s time off work. Plan ahead, make sure you can afford it. There are a lot of people who would never have had children had it not been for the baby bonus and ongoing government handouts. A lot of parents seem to think they have no obligations or responsibilities to their children and that the government agencies will step in as need. We are becoming a society with expectations of being ‘supported’.  Superannuation is essential for the sustainability of our ageing population. We cannot continue to rely on the pension scheme which needs to be overhauled so those that are able to take care of themselves do not suck off the government.

    • Ron Roberts says:

      08:41am | 12/03/10

      Congratulations Elaine - as always, a sensible and genuinely thoughful article from you

    • Rebecca Sobczak says:

      08:50am | 12/03/10

      Children are expensive.  But that doesn’t meant they should only be a luxury of the rich.  The depth of love that can exist between a child and parent should not come with a price tag.

      These days the idea of children has become a dirty thought for so many people.  When did the creation and education of another generation become so unpopular?

      Those with the most scathing words - perhaps already choosing to not have children themselves - will one day be retired - or no longer capable of working.  Then what?  Unless we have ongoing generations populous enough, educated enough, skilled enough, who’s going to make sure the world keeps turning?

      Creating and raising the next generations is EVERYONE’S responsibility - it’s in everyone’s best interst because none of us know how long we can work for, be capable for.  When did we become so selfish as a society to lose sight of that?

    • Bitten says:

      10:50am | 12/03/10

      Oh Rebecca, really, thank you so much for having children for me and all other Australians. You are an absolutely angel, a martyr, really you should be granted a sainthood. How about lots and lots of money because you can’t possibly take responsibility for your choices and pay for them youself? Would that make you happy? Because you are more important than me or anyone else who has a different opinion to your. You should be the only person heard by the government of this nation. I have no rights. I’m just an revenue-generator, I don’t deserve anything. I should be castigated for being so selfish, perhaps publicly flogged. You, though, you should be canonized. Really, we are just so, so grateful for you being so altruistic.

      Would you like some more sanctimony with your greed?

    • Kim says:

      11:20am | 12/03/10

      Children are the parents responsibility and yes they are expensive.  I have 4 children the youngest 13 (twins) so I missed out on the baby bonus and also any paid maternity leave.  Budgeting is the key word for raising children.  I went back to work after 12 months of my children’s birth.  Those 12 months were hard for us financially, but we pulled through okay without any help from the government or anyone else.  We have only recently bought our own house having rented until we had enough deposit.  Even though we’re probably going to be in our 60’s by the time we pay it off, I feel that the whole experience has been worth it.  People today look for handouts instead of working things out for themselves.

      I should not have to pay for anyone else’s children.  Call me whatever names you want, but if you feel that you can’t afford a child, then budget and save until you can afford one.  Don’t expect anyone else to to pay for your children for you.  Don’t hold out your hand for money from someone else so that you can continue in the lifestyle that you’ve become accustomed to.  Budget and do it yourself.

    • Ella says:

      02:14pm | 12/03/10

      The world will keep turning whether we have people on it or not. You’re making the assumption that continuing our society is a good thing, I wouldn’t agree thats a given. Nor is the assumption that we expect people to care for us in our old age. I am quite willing to, when I reach an age too old to care for myself, say that I’ve had a good run and end things myself in a humane and dignified way.

    • Rebecca says:

      02:46pm | 12/03/10

      Thanks everyone but just to clear up a few things, I’m definitely not a
      - parasite
      - greedy
      - trying to live a lifestyle I’ve become accustomed to through govt support
      - calling for castigation or public flogging.

      I agree with Vento’s comments that it’s more about putting in place the policies and strategies that create the kind of society that we want to live in.  If evidence tells us that it creates great outcomes for everyone involved - why wouldn’t we do it? 

      And even if the govt pays for it (not business), isn’t it still coming out of taxpayers pockets?  Like a whole host of other govt initiatives that may benefit all (e.g. medicare) or some (first home buyers grant) of society…

    • Muttley says:

      03:25pm | 12/03/10

      Bitten, what an absolute tool. You’ve gone on the attack for no reason. The post from Rebecca does not ask for your thanks or imply that she is some kind of martyr. The vitriol spewing forth leads me to believe you need a good dose of anger management. Get the chip off your shoulder fool.

    • Craig says:

      09:17am | 12/03/10

      Pay for your own kids, pay for your own health-care, pay for your own retirement, because I’m sick of doing it.

    • Peter says:

      11:24am | 15/03/10

      Hey Craig, agree with you on the personal responsibility bit, but providing good education for our kids and looking after our country men and women via health care, these are patriotic duties. People shouldn’t be expecting any more than that.

    • Martin G says:

      09:52am | 12/03/10

      Pay for your own damn kids, and scrap the plasma bonus.

      If you want maternity or paternity leave, do it without having your hand in my back pocket - i.e. unpaid.

    • John says:

      11:27am | 12/03/10

      A much more equitable, useful, and worthwhile way to support families and children would be to allow income splitting between spouses.  Yet this is something governments of all persuasions have steadfastly refused to consider, preferring instead to embark on big grandstanding splashes that they hope will win them more votes.  This maternity leave stuff falls largely into that latter category.

      The paid maternity leave options on offer also have the effect of tying everything down to a particular way of doing things.  Income splitting would enhance individual options, giving everyone more choice as to what they want to do.

      Of course these aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.  But to do things properly we need to look at the big picture and stop fiddling around the edges as all our political groups seem to be doing.

    • zoe says:

      12:14pm | 12/03/10

      Thankyou John, this is exactly what I have thought, It is such a simple way to solve this problem, which is why it will never be taken up.  It just seems ridiculous for the governmnent to take with one hand and give with the other.

    • stephen says:

      11:58am | 12/03/10

      Wrong. Values needs an object. We need only conscience.

    • IMHO says:

      12:18pm | 12/03/10

      Yeah I don’t think most of society’s current ills are anything to do with business not supporting paid maternity or paternity leave. Like any planned welfare, it should be looked at carefully in terms of the pros and cons, and it should be funded by the government.

      Whether you are for or against it, paid leave to have kids should not be paid for by any particular section of society, example “big business”. Individual employers should be free to provide it if they feel a particular employee is worth retaining, otherwise, if it’s to be introduced, it should be government funded only.

    • Vento says:

      02:06pm | 12/03/10

      It is interesting that all this noise is being made about “choice” and how it is an individual’s choice to have children. Of course it is. That is not even worth debating.

      What I would like to understand is how many people who are against paid maternity leave took advantage of the first home owners grant? I am not one of the lucky beneficiaries of this scheme. It seems obvious to me that buying a property is also a matter of choice, yet I am helping them (through my taxes) pay for it.

      These are decisions that society has (for whatever reason - economic, human capital etc) decided are important. Some people are going to benefit, some are not. Let’s move away from what we think of people’s choices, whether it is buying a house, or having children, and think of the longer term implications to society.

      Evidence shows us that the early years of a child’s life are the most important to their long term wellbeing. Ok, don’t contribute (through tax) to a paid maternity scheme – and you will possibly be paying more for that child later in their life through other tax related schemes (health, unemployment benefits etc). Same with homeowners – there is a lower percentage of homeowners on the age pension than are renting.  You could spend less now – but “preventative” or early intervention initiatives are far cheaper in the long term.

      This is all part and parcel of being in a society.

    • DG says:

      02:45pm | 12/03/10

      The right to “housing” is a fundamental human right specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 25 (1)).

      Just thought that I should mention that when we are talking about the difference between funding things that are “human rights” and things that are a personal choice. For that reason I would draw a distinction between the housing benefits that are available and paid maternity leave.

      Clearly, maternity leave wasn’t important in the same way as the rights that actually made it into the universal declaration.

      Again, no one is denying that early years are important to a child’s development. We are instead suggesting that parents should take financial responsibility for the care of their children (if they choose to have them), or turn them over to the State if the parent is unable or unwilling to take the time to care for them.

    • IMHO says:

      03:38pm | 12/03/10

      Nicely said Vento. I don’t get all these rapid kid-haters who “object to paying for peoples’ choices to have kids” as if we don’t all pay for all sorts of choices that people make as part of being in society.

      I still reckon though, that making one sector of society fund it (eg Big Business) is not fair and not smart. It’s a type of welfare (like the first homeowners grant) and it should be examined by government as to the pros and cons, costs and benefits, and should then be funded by government if it’s agreed it’s a good thing. Penalising business is unfair, and penalising women generally, by making them a less attractive employment risk, is also unfair.

    • GHR says:

      04:13pm | 12/03/10

      DG, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ‘a right to housing’ that’s not necessarily giving people who want to own bricks and mortar a subsidy to do so (clearly purchasing a house is a choice). I know many people who choose to permanently rent.

      Many comments above indicate that we are happy to have a society where only couples who have the financial wherewithall (planning ahead, savings, ability to lose one income for a period of time) should have children.  I am in a partnership where we are both earning and have a reasonable lifestyle. I am comfortable with sacrificing home comforts, luxuries or even some basics to fund having a child, however, at this stage if i stay at home with my child for more than 3 months i am not sure i can afford the rent, bills and food. All the research indicates that one parent (regardless of whether it’s mother or father) being with the child in their formative years has resounding benefits for that child’s emotional and physical wellbeing. Referencing other bloggers - this is about future generations not about whether i can have a kid and a plasma at the same time.  I work hard, as does my partner, but we are not in the upper percentile of income earners to have the luxury to give my child the best start in life by losing an entire income for longer than 3 - 6 months.  Is that the kind of society we want where only the rich can have healthy kids?

    • DG says:

      09:42am | 15/03/10

      I didn’t say that the subsidy for bricks and mortar was a human right, I said that housing, as opposed to maternity leave, was a human right. It makes sense that society assists people in respect of fundamental human rights (such as housing) as opposed to other desires (such as maternity leave).

      Just as we offer rental assistance to some people who need assistance with housing, we offer assistance to purchasers who are unable to afford housing. Whether the first home owners grant is a good idea is a separate debate, and one that should be considered in the light of it’s intended outcomes and it’s efficacy in achieving those outcomes.

      It remains that funding for matters related to fundamental human rights are, in my opinion, more worthwhile than funding for other interests (such as maternity leave, sports subsidies and public broadcasting).

      I’m not a big income earner but, as I said before, my partner and I have made sacrifices now so that if/when we have kids we can afford it on one income.

      The sacrifices don’t start at birth, they start as soon as you start planning to have kids. As you said, you have a “reasonable lifestyle” now, but are willing to make sacrifices after a child. Why not make those sacrifices now so that you can afford to take 6 months out to look after the child? A little forward planning goes a long way.

    • Jenni says:

      04:47pm | 12/03/10

      Who was it who said “give me a child to the age of seven and I will give you the man?” Personally, I don’t see the longterm benefit of this kind of financial support in a baby’s first six months. At this stage they are not really learning or doing anything. Yes, they are bonding with the parent, and that’s great and all, but ... all they do is sleep, eat, and poop (with all due respect to parents who believe *their* infant is some kind of genius).

      Rather than six months of constant 1-1 interaction, followed by years of full-time day care, parents juggling work commitments, struggling for “quality time” with their children, wouldn’t it be more advantageous to society to offer some kind of long term support to allow BOTH parents to spend a little more time with their kids?

      The idea that John puts forward of allowing couples to income split seems to me a much better long term alternative. I am not against the wider community helping parents raise better children, and as a single woman with no kids, I don’t even mind helping to fund it through my taxes. I consider it just as important as funding education, health and law enforcement - it’s all a part of building a stronger, more well-adjusted society. I just think there are better ways to do this than 6 months paid parental leave.

    • Bon says:

      02:10pm | 13/03/10

      Jenni babies starting learning from the time they are born.  Some research suggests they start learning even before this.  The first six months are vital to every child’s development.  They do not just sleep, eat and poop.  As little humans, with rapidly developing brains and bodies, babies are much more dynamic than that.  I say this as a mother who does not believe her children are geniuses, just normal.

      I do agree with your argument though that it would be a good idea to offer long term support to allow both parents to spend time with their children.

    • Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

      11:26pm | 12/03/10

      To all you posters out there who don’t want to pay for “other people’s kids”, just where do you think the tax payers will come from when you are old & grey? ? ? Someone will be needed to pay for things that your super doesn’t, the best place to get future tax payers is by local production.

    • Peter says:

      10:56am | 15/03/10

      Welfare for the rich, progress? Spare me please…

    • Peter says:

      12:31pm | 15/03/10

      After this debate, i see pregnant woman in a different light. Once they looked radiant and beautiful, now I see a resentful person, resentful that she’s pregnant, and resentful that other people just don’t give them some money they don’t need.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @CrawfordFund: @farrm51 u may like 2 help spread word of our #foodsecurity journo award http://t.co/FwbMWwJmLf

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

tory_maguire

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

Daniel Piotrowski

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

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