The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Policy bombshell has backfired > Comments

Policy bombshell has backfired : Comments

By Graham Young, published 20/8/2010

It seems counterintuitive that voters would spurn a more generous Liberal paid parental leave, but there are good reasons why.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I'm in favour of a "breeder pays" scheme. My wife and I both worked for years till we had kids, then she quit work and we've been a one income family ever since. There is already plenty of welfare associated with having children, without offering incentives for a six month holiday. I don't think there should be any maternity leave pay, only the usual centrelink means-assessment and calculated payment. Maternity leave should mean that the job must be kept open for hers or his return, but that's all. If people want to start a family they have to be prepared to make sacrifices. In reality it's no sacrifice.
Given my opinion, Gillard's scheme is bad enough, but Abbott's is obscene!
Having babies should not mean a lucrative six-month leave!
In any case, imagine the corruption; many couples would agree with me that one parent quits work, but of course they would do that after using up that maternity leave! It's just the usual cynical and unsustainable electioneering.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 20 August 2010 10:08:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's an interesting question Graham.

As far as I am concerned, it confirms to me that Abbott is little
more then a slippery political fox, quite prepared to throw liberal
ideology out of the window, in order to get his behind on the PM's
chair. I still think it's a great shame that Costello is not
there to take on the job.

As far as a political strategy is concerned, it could possibly
win it for him. If people change their vote, its commonly over
a single issue which is very much in their self interest and it
only takes a few % to swing an election. How many women are out
there who are thinking of having kids in the next 5-6 years and
will this kind of money influence their vote? Highly likely
it will. 6 months on full pay can certainly buy votes. Even if
it only applies to a small % of the voters, it could be enough
to get him over the line. Next, his own four daughter would
be first in line to benefit.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 20 August 2010 10:42:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott's scheme is obscene over-indulgence and contradicts his claim to offer good economic governance.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 20 August 2010 10:50:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously mr rabbott thinks some mothers and their babies are worth more than others.
Telling that is.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 20 August 2010 11:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If this policy was introduced by Labor, it would have widespread appeal, especially form the Fairfax media. The feminists would be crowing from the rooftops every time Gillard said it's a work entitlement and not welfare.

It would be considered progressive, and moving forward.

'overdue' I believe is the feminist mantra.

I believe it is over generous, but if you do see it as a work entitlement it isn't.

The trouble is you cant see it as a work entitlement because it is being paid by the government.

The other trouble is it HAS to be paid by the governmnet to prevent women being discriminated against in the workforce.

IN the end, it's too late for me, but I tend to lean towards the other posters in thinking that people should plan for children, and largely fund it themselves, with the obvious safety nets.

BUT, think of what it could save in FTB, childcare rebates, baby bonus etc, with the added advantage of children being rased by their parents.

I often wonder what the cost is of funding childcare and FTB and the Baby Bonus is against the government's leave.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 August 2010 12:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a good article, Graham, one that I find rather surprising.

But then the plan to tax businesses to help a person on $150,000 per year by giving them a $75,000 baby gift seems rather bizarre especially coming from the Liberal Party which is better known for screwing members of the work force.

Hopefully most other Australians will see through Phoney Rabbott and, tomorrow, banish him from the political scene forever!
Posted by David G, Friday, 20 August 2010 3:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have loved more policy bombshells during this campaign. Something to really get the debate happening, instead of having a debate about a debate.

My question in general is do we really need to keep finding new ways to spend taxpayers money or impose new taxes on business?

I really warmed to the idea of income tax reform that I just published on my blog (yes, unabashed self-promotion, sorry: http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/) - perhaps with the reduced tax burden, parents-to-be and everyone in general can be encouraged to use the extra money in a more positive way?
Posted by jorge, Friday, 20 August 2010 6:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would appear to me that having children has become a fashion accessory that has to be had. All the bonuses for baby and family are obscene. Having a family requires sacrifice and hard work. The children come first not the career. As a single parent it get's even more difficult to balance work and family but it can be done.
The current policies being offered are unnecessary and indulgent to a sector of the community that have stretched themselves way to thin and have mortgage shock or a debt crisis. It is those same areas of the country that make up our marginal electorates and drag our country through some pretty poor electoral decisions based on their small minded greed.
These policies are typical of policy as a whole at this time. Poorly thought out and targeted to a greedy and ignorant marginal that is hungry for money to apease the pressure their lives have become. We need a Leader please.
Posted by nairbe, Saturday, 21 August 2010 7:31:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is another problem with the scheme, but it's subtle and probably not a reason for voter antipathy, yet.

Explaining his parental leave scheme to Parliament on on 27 May, Tony Abbott said: "Most families cannot pay the mortgage without two incomes."

The extra money in the Abbott option is really a subsidy of home prices. Just as the first home owners grant simply raised the prices of homes, people will pay the highest price for a home that they can borrow, and banks will lend the highest amount they believe you can repay.

If the bank doesn't have to worry about a baby interrupting half of a family's income, it will lend more money. The difference in borrowing power would simply become the difference in home prices. Families buying a home after the scheme becomes law, would never get to spend the extra money; they would receive it in one hand and pay it into their mortgage with the other.

Labor's parental leave scheme is a timely piece of social equity, which would enable Australia to have meaningful families and grow future workers at home.

The difference between Labor's scheme and the Liberal scheme is simply another taxpayer gift to the banks and to those lucky enough to already own a home. Future home buyers, as usual, would be the biggest losers.
Posted by sceptic, Monday, 23 August 2010 9:49:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It should be noted that both sides of government see the Paid Parental Leave Payment (PPL) as an economic payment not a welfare payment.

It is understandable that some who have not had the chance to have any PPL do not support this payment - stating that they coped without this payment so others should too if they decide to have children.

However I would like to point out to all those commenting that Australia is the only OECD country (besides the USA - which has it in a number of States) which does not have a paid parental leave scheme. There are even a number of third world countries which have a PPL scheme. Almost all PPL schemes around the world are government paid.

Most of these PPL schemes have been around for many years - for example I have an English friend who had PPL for all her children and her eldest is now in his forties.

What makes Australia so different in the needs of our young parents from others? It now takes most couples two incomes to be able to afford to buy a house. Many young people have HECS debts also. It is not just so they can have extras or the biggest house. The costs of child care are high (and going upwards - we need quality care for our children)and places are hard to find.

Let us move with the times and admit it is time that Australia had PPL (join the rest of the world).

It is concerning that Abbott's model makes large businesses pay, it is a shame that after all this time the Labor party model is minimal, but it is the first step.

Australia needs Paid Parental Leave now. My comment to those who keep saying let those who have the children pay remember that without those children being born - who will be looking after them as nurses etc when they are old and may need care? It is the next generation!

Gillian
Posted by gillmc, Monday, 23 August 2010 5:57:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gillmc: <It is not just so they can have extras or the biggest house. The costs of child care are high>
Dear Gillmc, thet is precisely the reason, the house, the cars and the trappings. There are already tons of family benefits and no excuse to match maternity payments to income up to 75k for six months! I have six kids and we've been a single income family since the first was born, and we have a 200k dolar mortgage!
But we're not really doing our bit, are we? In fact we're downright un-Australian! We should both be working long hours, investing in a condominium, driving BMW's and planning the next world tour while the babies grow up in childcare! Childcare workers btw are payed a pittance, so don't expect Mother Goose to be fussing over the kids while you're keeping up with the Jones's--daycare kids are INSTITUTIONALISED.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're more interested in your bloody lifestyle, don't have kids!
A little bit of sacrifice is good for the soul.
Abbott's scheme is indefensible. Still, it might take the pressure of the hated single mums, who have to get by on a shoestring so the corporate class and the upwardly mobile can keep up with fashion!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 23 August 2010 6:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paying someone who earns $3,000 a week, 75,000 dollars to have a child, while paying someone who earns $500 a week 12,500 dollars for the same thing is an obscenity! Tony Abbott is and has always been and will always be an obscenity, the only greater obscenity are the ignorant and or corrupted and the wealthy self interest groups that vote for, support and donate huge funds for this manipulative, conniving, scheming and divisive religious right wing extremist, known to all as the Mad Monk, for very good reason!
Posted by HFR, Monday, 23 August 2010 7:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@gillmc - Yes, and for those reasons both sides of politics have agreed to introduce PPL. One way or another, PPL is coming.

The question has therefore shifted to ... why should rich mums with high incomes receive so much more subsidy than poor mums?

A lot of so-called "middle class welfare" is really just incentive tax relief for high tax payers to change their behaviour - such as choosing private schools or private health insurance instead of placing an even bigger burden on publicly funded options.

But full income continuance stretches the credibility of this concept. A parent staying at home has time to cook, and doesn't need to eat at a restaurant or drink Grange every night. The only reason a rich mum needs more subsidy than a poor mum, is to keep making bigger mortgage payments on a fancier home.

This is welfare targetted as precisely as possible towards matching the prices of people's homes - or as close as you can target it, without making it any more obvious. And as we know from the first home owners grant, subsidies aimed at house purchasers end up being subsidies for house vendors and bank shareholders.

Both the Labor and Liberal PPL schemes would enable battlers to have babies and still eat without saving up or making sacrifices. The difference is, Tony Abbott's scheme would subsidize house prices - which are already subsidized up to their necks - making homes even more unaffordable.
Posted by federalist, Monday, 23 August 2010 7:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Let us move with the times and admit it is time that Australia had PPL (join the rest of the world).*

Fair enough Gillian. But it does not have to be the most
generous in the world and this one was clearly against
liberal philsophy, so nothing more then a vote porky
for Tony, in his rush to become PM.

So cancel the baby bonus and introduce a scheme such
as labor are suggesting, which is a bit more fair
and reasonable all around. The 5000$ baby bonus
cancellation, would pay for a fair bit of it.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 23 August 2010 7:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy