Prev
Next

Parental leave scheme treats mothers like criminals

Steve Fielding

by Steve Fielding

16 Jun 01:20pm

Must Reads

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

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

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

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Families, Justice, Parental Leave, Parenting

79 comments

The Rudd Government’s paid parental leave scheme appallingly places prisoners on a higher pedestal than stay at home mums - mums who slog their guts out all day trying to look after their kids who need 24-7 attention.

Prisoner wouldn't have been as successful if it were called Paid Parental Leave Scheme

While paid parental leave is a good thing the Government’s scheme has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

On page 20 of the explanatory memorandum of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, it says that prisoners who perform work in prison would be eligible for the Government’s paid parental leave scheme.

This is disgraceful in itself because when someone is sent to prison they give up their rights because they have broken the law while law-abiding stay at home mums get nothing. The Government sees no problem in stripping away prisoners’ rights to vote, but is happy to hand them out cash payments while stay at home mums don’t get a dime.

The Government’s scheme enshrines into law a policy which ignores the value of the work performed by mothers who stay at home and look after their children. It makes a judgment call on what is real work, and what isn’t.

I don’t think any parent that has ever spent a day at home looking after a one year old would claim that it was a relaxing day off. The Government’s scheme treats unpaid childcare work as the lowest form of work. In fact, it doesn’t even classify it as work at all.

Most incredibly, even prisoners and prostitutes are valued more highly than stay-at-home parents under the Labor Party’s policy. That’s right, under the proposed scheme, a criminal who does paid work in prison or a women who works as a prostitute can each meet the work test requirement to qualify for government payments, but an exhausted mother looking after three small children at home cannot.

What kind of values is this sending to the community?

I’m not suggesting for a moment that woman shouldn’t want to have careers. I also understand that there are many women who would like to spend more time at home looking after their children but their financial situation makes this next to impossible.

Similarly, I am in no way advocating cutting the amount of money that we give to families. Rather, quite the opposite, I believe we should be increasing the assistance that we give to families with children, because having children is expensive and families need help. However, this help should be across the board, not just to those families with mothers in the workforce. I believe all mums should get paid parental leave, not just a select few.

A recent Galaxy Poll showed that 68% of people thought there should be equal funding to all mothers, irrespective of whether they engage in paid work in the workforce or do unpaid work as a stay-at-home mother. These figures are compelling and prove that the Rudd Government’s scheme as it currently stands is out of touch with the views of the general population.

Most commented

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

79 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Kane says:

      01:32pm | 16/06/10

      Stay at home mothers already qualify for the baby bonus as well as family tax benefits.  The paid parental scheme is separate to this issue.  Stay at home mothers will not lose these under this scheme.  Also instead of opposing this scheme why don’t you support it and then propose additional legislation helping stay at home mothers.  Of cause that would mean you actually had to think up policy rather than just opposing everything and wasting the senates time.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      08:46pm | 16/06/10

      Stay at home mothers will be $3000.00 worse of under Rudd’s scheme.

      Also those have more than one child will mostly loose out if they don’t ruch back to work.

      Why should those mothers who Rush back to work and farm out there children be rewarded by the government?

    • Kane says:

      09:10pm | 16/06/10

      It is hardly a reward at minimum wage.  The idea is that it encourages female participation in the workplace as well as help encourage people to have children to help resolve the aging population and lack of babies being born to replace them as tax payers.  If you are having children and rushing back to work to qualify for another round of paid parental leave then you are an idiot as it is not profitable

    • joe says:

      09:47pm | 16/06/10

      Kane well Rudd thinks we are all idiots then because he thinks his hand out will get mothers rushing back to work to prop up the productivity of the economy and pay off his large debts.

    • DG says:

      05:14am | 17/06/10

      Why should those mothers who Rush back to work and farm out there children be rewarded by the government?

      Because a person who goes back to work does two things:
      (1) creates employment at a childcare facility,
      (2) earns money and pays tax,
      (3) increases the family’s disposable income.

      A stay at home parent does none of those things. In fact a stay at home parent reduces the workforce (by removing themself from the work force and by reducing demand for childcare services), reduces the taxable income of their partner (assuming they have one), and reduces the disposable income of the family.

      Any group responsible for economic growth will want to prevent those reductions - as such they encourage people to get jobs and to contribute to the economy.

      If people are willing to face a prolonged period of economic stagnation (or decline) then policies that encourage people to avoid the multi-billion dollar childcare industry, remove themselves from the workforce, reduce their disposable income are the way to go. Otherwise people need to be encouraged to participate in the workforce.

      This issue is that balancing point that ensures the creation of the next generation in big enough numbers to ensure replacement, while encouraging economic growth.

    • julia says:

      06:32am | 17/06/10

      Actually, in families where the income is over $150,000 there isn’t a baby bonus anymore.

      And if you combine the effect of the medicare safety net being scrapped in ‘high’ income famiilies, it really hurts.

    • James1 says:

      11:02am | 17/06/10

      Anyone who earns over $150 000 and is “hurting” financially can not manage money.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      01:08pm | 17/06/10

      Why do parents need financial compensation whether they are in paid work or not? Your “reward” is the child.

      Compensation is for a loss caused by someone else’s negligence. If having children makes one feel like they have “lost” then they should reconsider parenthood.

    • grandma says:

      01:36pm | 16/06/10

      what a lot of rrubbish you write here

      YOU ALL MISS THE POINT THE MONEY IS FOR THE BABIES
      NOT THE MOTHER SO THEY HAVE A BETTER LIFE.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:59pm | 16/06/10

      Since babies can’t physically spend money (no verbal and numeracy skills) let’s just say that the parents have control over the money. Since they can spend it anyway they like, it is not an automatic assumption that money will be spent on the baby. If it was a voucher for a pram or 6 months of nappies, you might have a point.
      It’s all middle class welfare, add it to the deficit.

    • NERT says:

      03:36pm | 16/06/10

      you make a pretty huge assumption that the money will be spent on the baby.
      I have a divorced friend who pays his child support to the ex-wife who then turns up with a new hair do and freshly manicured fingernails.
      maybe we should have a food stamps system like the US to make sure the money goes where its intended

    • Joe says:

      09:00pm | 16/06/10

      So grandma if it is all for the babies, why should those babies who’s mother decide to stay at home and look after them, and go without their job income, get less? Poor babies.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:02am | 17/06/10

      No, the money isn’t for the baby, at least not directly.  It’s to ensure that the mother isn’t disadvantaged and doesn’t lose her job for choosing to have children.  Obviously, if the mother loses her job at the same time that the family is trying to raise a newborn child, that will cause serious strain.  The money is for the baby in the sense that it will offer the mother, and by extension the family including the baby, financial security and a chance to raise a child in peace.  It’s hard to know what Steve’s on about except that he thinks massive amounts of money should be spent by government to keep women out of the workforce, which is disappointing to say the least.

    • Jodie says:

      01:36pm | 16/06/10

      Steve, I think your article is misinformed. Mothers not in the paid workforce still get the baby bonus and (depending on overall household income) can access Family Tax Benefit Part B.

      Reply

    • joe says:

      09:27pm | 16/06/10

      Some facts: 54% of mothers will be unwaged in 2011.

      Birth year - Waged-mum families get 65% more than unwaged-mum families
      Annual Support - Waged-mum families get 94% more than unwaged-mum families

      http://www.family.org.au/ChildcareUnfair.pdf

      Commenters are forgetting that those mothers who rush back to work and use subsidised childcare are already getting huge subsidies from the government for childcare that stay at home mothers don’t get, and this is way before PPL.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      01:17pm | 17/06/10

      Joe cited “family dot org”, the website of the Australian Family Association; a far-right ultra conservative movement who’d prefer that women stopped worrying their pretty little heads over things like education, career and orgasms,  and instead remained virgins until marriage and chaste thereafter and begrudingly agreeing to sex as a duty to husband and keeping the country white and Christian.

      The Australian Family Association’s research cannot possibly be biased much now, can it Joe? Have subscribers to AFA been directed to support Fielding here in the Punch today?

    • disgusted female says:

      01:40pm | 16/06/10

      After just watching your disgusting comments in the Senate I think you should look in the mirror. I pray that you aren’t re-elected.

      Reply

    • Kev says:

      02:13pm | 16/06/10

      Hear ,hear.

    • Political Animal says:

      02:50pm | 16/06/10

      Those comments were disgusting!

      Steve, you going after the loony far-right in a desperate attempt to be re-elected?

    • JC says:

      03:54pm | 16/06/10

      HOLY CRAP! i was confused by your comment, so googled what Fielding said in the senate and now i am totally disgusted too.

      I was reading the post, saying “who the hell is this guy?”

      now i know and wish i didn’t.

      Ignorance is bliss.

    • D'oh says:

      04:33pm | 16/06/10

      Are you perhaps a drug addict or a welfare cheat?  Are you disgusted that you won’t be able to take advantage of the payments??

    • Mitch says:

      08:44pm | 16/06/10

      Could not agree more. They were utterly vile and have brought Australian politics to a new low.

      Steve Fielding, you are a disgrace and an embarrassment.

    • Joe says:

      09:05pm | 16/06/10

      Why didn’t the government simply amend the law then to not alow those who abort their babies to get the money?

      I think Fielding thought of something the government hadn’t because he is thinking of the babies not the feminist votes.

    • xyz says:

      10:58pm | 16/06/10

      Senator Fielding, how many women have deliberately got an abortion at 20 weeks to receive the baby bonus? It’s not easy to get a late term abortion for no reason! What planet are you from? You need to retract your statement!

    • denise says:

      01:47pm | 16/06/10

      dont you beleive that all babies are equel no matter who the mother is

      we know that well paid parents may not qualify for this bonus but we do know that the less fortunate babies that come in to poorer homes are
      just as equel. I am disgusted that you cannot see that all children under the sun are equal   so you dont think so is that correct,  that baby did not ask to be born to a person who in the opinion of others may not be a good person
      tjhat baby did not choose its mother, 
      you absolutley amaze me.  The bonus has been voted down and will now punish all mothers,  the greens and fielding should be ashamed along with the liberal,.  Abbott would of told them to do this,  why dont you ask him its

      Reply

    • coldsnacks says:

      01:56pm | 16/06/10

      The Libs do have a different plan, one that won’t cost taxpayers, and isn’t another form of middle class welfare.

      That is, PPL as an entitlement, not as a benefit.

      Does the government pay for your annual or sick leave, or does your employer do it?

      Then why should the taxes of those who are single and childless go towards paying people who chose to have children?

    • Greek Snake says:

      02:43pm | 16/06/10

      @denise: All babies are not equal. Rats tend to breed rats.

      @coldsnacks: I agree with your final point. No one should fund other peoples babies. The only person paying for ones child should be the parents of said child. You want to have a kid? Put the damn money away and have one. Don’t expect the government or your employer to give you 6 months paid leave. I hate this sense of entitlement.

      Like any other form of leave, it benefits your employer by the way of NOTHING AT ALL. If I take time off for a holiday, I use annual leave or leave without pay, my employer gets nothing, I get paid if I have leave. Why do mothers feel so special as to attract their own fund to take time off. I don’t care what the reason. Whether you are going fishing, buying a car interstate, your mother in-law is coming from overseas or you are going to have a baby, your absence from work should be on your own time or accrued leave. Simple as that.

    • Fred says:

      04:29pm | 16/06/10

      Ummm… unless I’m looking in the wrong place this hasn’t been voted on in the chamber yet…..?

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:44pm | 16/06/10

      Coldsnacks,

      The problem with the Liberal party is that they can’t make up their mind. Firstly they side with the mining industry over the RSPT and declare that it’s a “Great big new tax” and then they announce a policy that will tax the mining industry and thousands of other businesses to fund their “Great big new tax”. And it will cost taxpayers, do you seriously believe that these businesses will absorb the costs? No, they will just pass it on to the consumer.

    • Nic says:

      01:34pm | 17/06/10

      as my significant other earns about $150k , I prefer Tony’s Great Big New Tax” on big business, a year off and she still gets most of her salary.

      Thanks Tony, I just want to check, did you run it past the shadow cabinet or properly cost it… or is it a non-core promise

    • Zaf says:

      01:51pm | 16/06/10

      “when someone is sent to prison they give up their rights because they have broken the law “

      Actually, they do not give up their rights.

      http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/prisoners/index.php

      In a recent High Court judgment (the High Court is the highest court in Australia) his Honour Mr Justice Michael Kirby (dissenting) commented that:

      Prisoners are human beings. In most cases, they are also citizens of this country, “subjects of the Queen” and “electors” under the Constitution. They should, so far as the law can allow, ordinarily have the same rights as all other persons before this Court. They have lost their liberty whilst they are in prison. However, so far as I am concerned, they have not lost their human dignity or their right to equality before the law.
      quoted from Muir v The Queen [2004] HCA 21 at paragraph 25.

      This quote underlines the point that criminal offenders lose their liberty when they are sentenced to imprisonment, but that in a civilised society they do not lose their rights as citizens. In other words: the imprisonment is the punishment. Our prisons are meant to be places of rehabilitation, not places where extra punishment is added.

      ///////

      You may have many valid issues with the Govt’s Maternity Leave Scheme, Senator, but arguing from a demonstrably false premise undercuts your own case.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      02:06pm | 16/06/10

      Good post. People do seem to forget that people go to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

    • Edward says:

      01:52pm | 16/06/10

      I wont be as rude as others but I thought the point of this piece of legislation was to enable mothers to be more available to newborn babies for longer.  Stay at home mothers are already at home.  They don’t have to make the mortgage repayments, etc, on a reduced income because their income is not affected by the baby.

      Working mothers have budgets based on their income as well as their partner so they need to find a replacement for that income. 

      This isn’t a payout or any comment on the value of a stay at home mother’s effort.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      09:13pm | 16/06/10

      Edward most stay at home mothers aren’t at home untill the first child arrives so most first time mothers will get this benefit.

      Where you are totally wrong, is that stay at home mothers have to make the mortgage payment based on ONE income usualy because they think that looking after their child full time is more important than having a second car or having a holiday away, or a big screen tv…

      The irony is that the mother going back to work has more income than the stay at home mother so the working mother needs less income.

      Why are we falling for the economic rationalist argument that we need mothers to work for some sort of increased “efficiency” for the betterment of the economy? All to the detriment of the next generation.

    • coldsnacks says:

      01:53pm | 16/06/10

      And another one to point out that stay at home mums don’t lose out on this.

      Stay at home mother’s are not in the workforce anyway. PPL is for those women who have to take time out of the workforce to look after their newborns(imo, it shouldn’t be paid by the taxpayer, it should be an entitlement like annual leave…but that’s another argument).

      Why pay those who don’t lose wages or promotion opportunities? Especially when they are getting money anyway.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      09:16pm | 16/06/10

      There seems to be an idea here that stay at home mothers are all Drs wives and have been at home since the minute they got married or something. God for that tiny tiny percentage.

      Many stay at home mothers have less income with just their husband working and have even worse promotion opportunities and loose much more wages when they decide to go back to work when their children start school. If anything these stay at home mothers need much more support than those who rush back to work after a few months.

    • loxy says:

      01:53pm | 16/06/10

      Steve, although I agree with you that women in prison should not be getting any type of maternity leave/pay, I think the rest of your article focuses purely on emotion, rather than economics. No one is suggesting that being a stay at home mum isn’t hard work, in fact I find being at work far easier than being at home with kids. That being said, the whole point of this scheme is to keep women at work, ie to reward the tax payer. Staying at home to raise your kids is a noble cause but not one I think taxpayers should fund. The hard reality is that those paying tax should be entitled to more than those who don’t, after all we are the ones funding everything. And the more people earning and paying tax, the better off this country is economically. As a mother, I certainly did not and do not expect any money from the goverment because I take time off work to be with my kids. It’s my choice and my responsibility.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      03:38pm | 16/06/10

      I find the opposite.  Staying at home with my daughter is far easier than work, and even though I love my job, I love my child more and looking after her is not work, but a pleasure.

    • Othello Cat says:

      04:35pm | 17/06/10

      “Staying at home to raise your kids is a noble cause “

      Oh but Steve and Joe in this forum DO think that MOTHERS staying at home with their kids IS a noble cause. That is what underpins this entire debate; that instead of making sacrifices such as giving up luxuries, (married) mothers are entitled to maintain a certain level of financial status at taxpayers’ expense ***just because*** they are mothers. Steve and Joe’s pronatalism is a thinly veiled smokescreen for very conservative social engineering.

      It is telling that the Australian public were quick to show support punitive transparency for the most vulnerable and most disempowered of welfare recipients; single parents, the long-term unemployed, the aged and Indigenous Australians. They encouraged it and made the usual (yet unfounded) ruminations about tarts who cannot keep their legs closed, losers and dole-bludgers, useless old pharts and good-for-nothing blacks. Yet nice middle-class mummies (and daddies) are given wads of cash—far greater than the other recipients—because the simple biologial function of parenthood is now worthy of canonisation. Double-standards much? Welfare was supposed to be for the needy, not for the well-off but middle-class welfare this scheme is and yet these whining people still feel they are so hard done by.

    • Mitchell says:

      01:59pm | 16/06/10

      I love it when people comment when they don’t do their research or believe spin.

      Baby bonus + Family Tax Benefit B is a lot less than the PPL

      Reply

    • Albie says:

      02:25pm | 16/06/10

      So what’s your point? They perform different functions…

      PPL is to facilitate women taking leave from their paid job in order to have a baby, without being financially worse off (well not too worse off anyway)

      The Baby Bonus is a cash bonus to help parents following the birth of a child. I

      ‘m not going to pretend to know what Family Tax Benefit B is cos I don’t have kids (which, by the way, does not mean I can’t have an opinion here).

      The amount of all these benefits will always be too much or too little (or maybe even just right?) depending on who you are and where your vested interests lay. That’s normal. But just because one is bigger than the other, doesn’t make some big point, it just states fact.

      So Mitchell… your point?

    • Markus says:

      02:35pm | 16/06/10

      It is still a lot more than an already stay-at-home mother is losing in income by leaving employment to look after a newborn, that amount being 0.

    • James says:

      02:43pm | 16/06/10

      A lot less? No it’s not. Maybe you should do some research.

      Baby Bonus - $5,185
      FTBB per year - $3,482.10
      FTBB supplement - $346.10

      Total FTBB + Baby Bonus = $9,013.20
      MAXIMUM PPL - $9,700

      = difference of $686.80. And the FTBB+BB is for people who weren’t making an income anyway. I’d hardly call that “a lot less,” would you, Mr Research?

    • Dan says:

      02:00pm | 16/06/10

      “Most incredibly, even prisoners and prostitutes are valued more highly than stay-at-home parents under the Labor Party’s policy.”

      Putting aside the issue of prisoners, you don’t think that prostitutes deserve parental leave? You do realise that prostitution is, gosh, a legal occupation? You may not like it, which I couldn’t care less about, but it is perfectly legal and they deserve parental leave just as much as any other working parent! What kind of value is it sending to the community when you stand there judging which women deserve to be part of the parental leave scheme?!!!

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      04:32pm | 16/06/10

      Thank you for making what I thought was a glaringly obvious point that needed to be made

    • Terry Wright says:

      05:09pm | 16/06/10

      Yes Dan, it’s always a problem when a so-called “Christian” devalues others for simply doing something they disapprove of. Especially when it’s legal, hurts no one or is often forced through circumstance.

      Fielding’s comments though are typical of his distaste for anyone who doesn’t fit the image of a Family First voter. On the weekend, Fielding was going gaga over The Greens support for safe injection clinics saying “there is no way we should be making it easier for these people to get their next hit”. “These people”? Does he mean drug users?  He also described The Greens call to save lives as, “warped policy ideas which will just erode away the moral fabric of our society”. Yep, wanting to minimise unnecessary deaths and related harm for those evil druggies is just morally wrong.

      Just like suggesting, “most incredibly, even prisoners and prostitutes…” are somehow less human than stay-at-home-parents, Fielding is always quick to use those who are not ideal FF supporters as political fodder.

      Fielding might love God, but boy does he hate people ... especially those the bible tells him not to hate.

    • Another Dan says:

      10:49am | 17/06/10

      Dan, his point was not that prostitutes shouldn’t get it; rather that full-time house mums ~should~ get it.  I agree it was fairly poorly argued but you’re trying to pretend he said something he didn’t.

      And Terry, your point is an important one for all Christians, but I think you’re confused about what ‘hate’ is.  Do you believe Fielding showed hatred toward prostitutes in his comments?  I believe the traditional Christian approach to people engaged in immoral (from a Christian point of view) activities is to “hate the sin, love the sinner”.  Speaking out strongly against an activity is not hating the person.  In fact, if you believe that someone is doing something destructive then speaking out strongly against it is actually love (wanting the best for somebody).

    • Dan says:

      10:56pm | 17/06/10

      Another Dan, I’m not ‘trying to pretend’ anything. He grouped prostitutes in with criminals. The reason why prostitutes, and not full-time mothers, get parental leave is that prostitutes do paid work. Unless he believes that prostitutes should not access parental leave because they are like criminals, he shouldn’t have said it.

    • AdamC says:

      02:09pm | 16/06/10

      Prisoners getting paid maternity leave - you couldn’t think up something as idiotic as that! Just another big fat fail from our bumbling government.

      Steve, I agree that government policies favour working parents, even where the choice to work is economically marginal given the cost of childcare, etc. I don’t think the solution is to give more money to single income families. It is better to cut taxes for all so that parents are in a better financial position when they decide to have kids, rather than showering them with all these post-conception or post-natal paydays.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      09:31pm | 16/06/10

      AdamC remember its all for the economic rationalist argument so that the economy can be more efficient. We need to have our mothers toiling away for the good of the economy. The likes of China would be proud.

    • MK says:

      02:16pm | 16/06/10

      Steve, it’s called paid parental LEAVE. If you aren’t working in the first place then you don’t have to go on maternity LEAVE so therefore you aren’t eligible. What’s so hard about that?

      PPL is a workplace entitlement, NOT a welfare one. What’s next? Should the government start paying sick leave and holiday loading to stay at home mums too?

      Reply

    • Albie says:

      02:29pm | 16/06/10

      Exactly.

      Just to head people off at the pass, I’m sure MK isn’t saying that raising kids at home isn’t “work”. What it isn’t, however, is paid. Therefore having a child doesn’t directly impact on your “income” (zero is zero, unfortunately).

      Therefore PPL couldn’t apply, and benefits such as baby bonus are more appropriate. If people have a problem with the amount that this pays, then that’s a separate issue.

      About whether PPL is welfare or a workplace entitlement… I’m a bit ambivalent because my job provide paid maternity leave anyway. But lots of people, who aren’t paid as well as I am, don’t get paid leave from their employer. Many small businesses can’t afford to offer paid leave either… so it comes down to a position of opinion/policy for people and the government. I am comfortable with the idea that there is a market failure in that not everyone can/will offer paid maternity leave. Market failure leads to govt intervention… leads to PPL.

      Yay i say

    • gez says:

      02:33pm | 16/06/10

      As the Libs and Labs tire us with their battle on who is more right wing,in come’s good ol Steve to relieve us with his stand up comedy. Keep it up Steve, you have fantastic material! Sheez im going to miss you post next election. Maybe you can do the talk circuit post your political career. Perhaps you could throw your hat into the fringe of caberet festivals? Love ya work!

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      03:04pm | 16/06/10

      Good one gez, what gilt edge comedy and from a Creationist no less Would a politician be lumped in the same category as a prostitute with apologies to working prostitutes? Both sell themselves to the highest bidder though I’d suggest prostitutes are more trustworthy, tell fewer lies and don’t solicit their business around shopping malls. If Steve could next whip out his trusty Bible and to a double routine outside Church next week with KR, then TA a week later it would be a real hoot . I wonder if Barnaby is available

    • D'oh says:

      03:45pm | 16/06/10

      Geez, that is a bit ignorant isn’t it gez?  Just because you don’t agree with his politics does not mean he will be voted out next election.

    • Kremin says:

      03:01pm | 16/06/10

      A thought bubble plan for taxation revenue - build a time machine/ spaceship to send Captain Fielding back to planet Misogyny where everyone lives by the code of “What would Jesus do?”. I’d laugh if If I wasn’t so angry.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      05:20pm | 16/06/10

      Are you angry because someone thinks differently to you?

      How tolerable and democratic of you…..

    • Moi says:

      05:41pm | 16/06/10

      Yes! Can we put Abbott on the same flight..one way tickets please!  Ironically, though, Jesus was very sympathetic to prostitutes.  Maybe Fielding just has a problem with the ones that are mothers as well? That’s not very Jesusy!

    • Moi says:

      05:52pm | 16/06/10

      D’oh, are you being sarcastic because someone thinks differently to you?

    • Zaf says:

      03:36pm | 16/06/10

      Some questions occur:

      1   How are prisoners going to get pregnant in prison?  We have no mixed gender prisons, and there are no conjugal visits afaik.  So: HOW?
      2   What about if a stay at home Mum IS a prostitute?
      3   Or a prisoner on remand?
      4   What about if a woman is a stay at home mum, a prisoner on remand AND a prostitute?
      5   Does this woman get counted as a stay at home Mum or as a prisoner or as a prostitute?

      In the interest of clarity, some more info on how this parental leave thing might be applied:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/call-for-clarity-on-how-parental-leave-scheme-will-work/story-e6frgczf-1225874732948

      From which:

      [While general prison work would not count as paid work under the paid parental leave work test, some pre-release employment programs undertaken by low-risk prisoners could fit the definition of paid work in certain circumstances.

      This pre-release work is performed in the community, provided and paid for by private employers and offers the same employment conditions any employee in that role would receive, such as leave entitlements and superannuation contributions.

      Paid parental leave would be paid to a mother in prison who had care of her child and had met the work test.

      Some women’s prisons include specialised units for mothers and babies, which allow mothers to breastfeed their newborn children.

      If a mother does receive paid parental leave in jail, prison authorities would determine how and for what purpose a mother could gain access to those funds.]

      So far no details on prostitutes : - (

      Reply

    • DG says:

      03:47pm | 16/06/10

      Senator,

      How do you propose to implement a paid parental leave scheme (whether employer funded or tax payer funded) that is not linked to the employment of the relevant parent?

      The point of such a scheme is to allow employed persons to take time out of their employment to look after their child. An unemployed person (i.e a person who is not employed) does not have employment from which they can take leave from. By definition, a payment to such a person is not leave, it’s simply additional money to keep doing what they were already doing. I do not deny that such money would be welcome - I’m certain most people would like to be given more money to keep doing exactly what they are already doing. 

      If being a ‘stay at home mum’ is a full time job - please, enlighten us, how does giving them money to keep doing that same full time job constitute “leave”? I presume that you do not intend to employ people to look after the children while these parents take ‘leave’ from their current responsibilities.

      Please Senator, what is your position on parental leave? (i.e persons who are employed and have a newborn baby)
      * Should such a person be entitled to paid leave from their paid employment? (i.e a subsidy for wages forgone due to having a child).
      * If so, for how long should this leave be available?
      * Should a person be entitled have their position held by their employer?
      * If so, for how long should a position be held for a person on parental leave?

      Is it possible that you could address the issue at hand (whether the cost to employed persons who cease to have employment due to parental responsibilities should be mitigated by a paid parental leave system) rather than attempting to muddy the waters with promises of blanket welfare for procreation.

      Ask yourself -
      (1) does your opposition to the proposed scheme bring you any closer to the welfare scheme you want to see in place?
      (2) Is it in a bad idea to mitigate the losses suffered by employed persons when they leave the workforce to raise children?

      If your answer to the above questions is “no”, why are you opposing the scheme?

      If the answer to either of the above is “Yes”, please explain to us, the electorate, how it brings your welfare scheme closer to fruition or why such mitigation is a bad idea.

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      04:06pm | 16/06/10

      Steve, does it embarrass you that members of the general public understand legislation better than you?  Not to mention laws relating to prisoners and prostitution.
      You really are out of your depth in all facets of the parliament.  Move on gracefully Steve, and let the big boys and girls play.

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      04:17pm | 16/06/10

      It is my understanding that the parental leave scheme payment replaces the baby bonus and Family Tax Benefit B for those parents with some workplace history.  James above has already done the sums and pointed out all parents regardless of work status are receiving very similar payments.  God I’m sick of whingers in this country.  I managed to work and raise five children with no baby bonuses, no Family Tax benefits, no child care benefit or rebate, no private health insurance rebate and interest rates of 17% for part of that time and about 9 - 10% for much of the rest and (I might point out no disposable nappies which is where I suspect much of this money goes!)

      Reply

    • NEFFA says:

      04:26pm | 16/06/10

      The thing that bugs me with all this whining about parental leave -
      when did being a mother stop being a privledge?, when did a child stop being a gift?
      I dont think motherhood should be classified as work. having kids is not a job, its a family.

      Reply

    • Moi says:

      05:36pm | 16/06/10

      NEFFA, I completely respect your view, however not all mothers (or fathers for that matter) see it this way.  Not all children are planned and not all mothers possess the desire to be omnipresent nurturers of their kids.  Women are not a homogenous category of people and the policies and social norms that support and police appropriate mothering should reflect the inherent differences between mothers.

    • Elphaba says:

      05:00pm | 16/06/10

      Everyone has pretty much said what I want to say, so I won’t reiterate.  Whether you have parents at the heart of your cause or not, your comments in the Senate were disgusting.

      I don’t usually resort to name-calling, but you, Fielding, are an arsehat.  And a menace to society.  Here’s hoping you get bumped come election time.

      Reply

    • Duke says:

      11:38pm | 16/06/10

      Hope you are proud of yourself Fielding.  Elected after a scumbag preference deal with labour and representing a miniscule, deranged electoral scab on the rump of the electorate, you have the disgraceful temerity to attempt to influence the lives of real, thinking, caring people.  Bring on the election, with Conroy and McClelland planning their petty surveillance state we can do with at least one less political pissant…

      Reply

    • OldGirl says:

      07:18am | 17/06/10

      I just feel disgusted with you Mr Fielding, I am well past child bearing age but I have the utmost respect for young Australian women. Childbearing is not an easy thing, I doubt anyone would carry a child to 20 weeks (5 months) then abort it for money. No amount of money would compensate the physical and mental pain these young women would have to go through. I can’t understand how you ever got elected. surely there cannot be that many silly Australians in your electorate. Respect our young women Mr Fielding or feel the wrath of Australia’s older women

      Reply

    • Press says:

      08:40am | 17/06/10

      Senator Fielding is the best example, by a country mile, of the fatal flaw in the “vote for independents” line. It’s a cop out. Who would want more drivelling drones like the Senator from Victoria. Pah.

      Reply

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:08am | 17/06/10

      I think the most scary thing about this person is, he holds the balance of power in the senate. If the government has a legislation going through and they have the greens on board along with senator Xenophon. they still need this idiot with his looney views, who also believes women who have been raped should be forced to have the babies from a resulting pregnacy. This idiot should be removed at the next election.

      Reply

    • monkeytypist says:

      10:22am | 17/06/10

      Steven, nobody’s saying stay-at-home mums (or dads, or grandparents, or other carers for that matter) aren’t valuable or important or don’t work hard.  This scheme is aimed at people in an employment relationship.  It is protection for them against losing their job, essentially.  Stay at home mums do not have to fear mistreatment at the hands of a paying employer.  So to treat them the same as people who are in a paid employment relationship simply makes no sense.

      That stay-at-home mothers work hard is neither here nor there.  They are not employees and do not need legislative protection as members of an employment market.

      Reply

    • Dan Cass says:

      10:30am | 17/06/10

      Why did the ALP give this man its preferences and put him in the Senate in the first place?

      Reply

    • Helena Handcart says:

      11:39am | 17/06/10

      Call me devious-minded, but wouldn’t the point of ‘addicts and welfare cheats’ having children for social security benefits be to have steady long-term income?

      Reply

    • KR says:

      05:51pm | 17/06/10

      While I agree that mothers shouldn’t be ‘treated like criminals’ I don’t think it’s particularly fair to compare prostitutes with criminals…

      Reply

    • Mackenzie says:

      10:21pm | 17/06/10

      Why does he equate working mothers with drug addicts and prostitutes? Is it because these women dare to have their own lives and don’t stay in their place, at home?

      And what kind of awful, nasty view of women does he have, that makes him think a woman would deliberately get pregnant so she could have a late term abortion just to collect welfare? What kind of monster would think that up in the first place. He should resign in shame! Idiot.

      Reply

    • Tsomo says:

      05:37pm | 17/01/11

      I’m amazed that so many of you here think that being with one’s baby, or babies is not worthwhile work and that maybe it is not even work requiring skill and time and having an important outcome ie: raising a human being to be healthy, happy, able, with high self esteem who will later serve the almighty god capitalism by working, spending, reproducing and so on.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

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

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

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

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

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

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed