Whilst I understand and generally agree with the sentiments in this article, I believe it misses one very important point: Paid Maternity Leave (and indeed, Paternity Leave) is a fundamental human right and should be government provided. I do not believe there should be any expectation on employers to provide paid parental leave (whilst it is nice if they do) and this increased expectation will lead to discrimination against women of child-bearing age (of which I am one).

The federal government has increasing budget surpluses over its term. All levels of government in New South Wales (Federal, State and Local) provide some form of paid maternity leave to their employees... but it can't be provided for employees in the private sector who contribute the most money to government revenue??

The fact that the federal government can afford to provide $4000 to employees who have unlawful dismissal claim under their WorkChoices legislation, but it cannot afford either paid maternity (or parental leave) or decent ongoing childcare subsidies to enable the return to work of mothers.

For the federal government to continue to refuse paid maternity leave (or parental leave) is discriminatory to the majority of women who are employed in the private sector. It is also a narrow-minded and short-sighted policy. In 10 years time Australia will reach a population crisis where there will be very few new entrants in the workforce supporting an ever increasing ageing population. Surely an holistic approach to population and work policy (and indeed long term taxation requirements) would be more sensible - ie: providing paid leave and childcare subsidies to working families now as an incentive for a sustainable future workforce?

I just wanted to make a supplemental post to make two points. My initial post was not a response to Timkins, but a response to the initial article.

With respect to the comments made by Timkins, I wanted to make this point: Your comments are very disappointing. Your comment about feminists was a deplorable generalisation. Furthermore, you obviously fail to recognise the simple fact that most women would WELCOME a greater input by fathers in the lives of their children. Unfortunately for many fathers, their work requirements have to take precedent because they become the primary bread-winner. Every study on the workplace and women's participation has indicated that women would like more workplace access, further that where women work they also do practically all the unpaid housework and child-rearing as well (essentially the equivalent of more than two full-time jobs).

It is important to recognise that there is no avoiding career breaks for women when they have children. For men, taking leave at the birth of a child is an option. For most families it is a necessity that one parent keep working to pay the bills. We should be focussing on providing conditions to address this imbalance. It is a very interesting, yet again disappointing fact, that many women today will still have insufficient superannuation to retire on, mainly because of the career breaks they need to take at the birth of their children. Surely we should be celebrating families of all varieties rather than making divisive and inappropriate comments about "feminists".

Redma,
“Your comment about feminists was a deplorable generalisation.“

I have read much feminist literature, but I have found the most minimal evidence of persons who refer to themselves as being “feminist”, that are in support of fathers, or who regard fathers as being of equal importance as mothers. Instead I have found the most extensive evidence of fathers being regarded as a second grade parent only, as well as extensive evidence of demonisation and vilification of fathers, and I have also found the most extensive evidence of lies, half-truths, misinformation, biased research, advocacy research, and hypocrisy within feminism.

The author seems to say that she is a “feminist” (ie. “After an abridged feminist lecture on the sexual division of labour” ), but in this article the word “I” is mentioned 34 times, (ie. as a type of “me-ism”) but there is nothing in the article to say how important it is for the father to be with the new-born baby, so that the father can bond with that child.

I think that feminists would rather have their fingers cut off, or their tongues torn out than write or speak of fathers bonding with their children. From what I have read of feminist literature, fathers bonding with their children would be total sacrilege, and the only real importance the father has is sperm-donor and pay-packet to the mother.

“Furthermore, you obviously fail to recognise the simple fact that most women would WELCOME a greater input by fathers in the lives of their children.”

Could you please reference the studies that show this, as I have seen at least 2, large-scale, recent Australian studies that show a very different story.

Could you also find the government, academic or feminist web-sites or literature that mentions the word father as well as the word mother when talking about parenting, (and not "partner" instead of "father" etc), or mentions phrases such as “men and their children” as well as “women and their children”.

[NB. I don't automatically believe something just because it comes from someone who calls themselves a "feminist"]

Bravo Rebecca, excellent article and letter to your husband's boss.

Unfortunately, the pendulum seems to have definitely swung against workers of both genders and their families, at least for the time being. I fear that many of the hard won gains by collectivised labour (like maternity and paternity leave per se) are likely to be trampled in the coming neo-Dickensian nightmare being perpetrated for our own good by the government that we deserve.

But that doesn't mean we should just roll over and shut up about it, either ;) The pendulum will swing back, sooner or later. Perhaps we need to descend once again into a Hobbesian industrial scenario where each takes as right the best *he* can get and bugger everybody else... and eventually people will get sick of that and start cooperating again. As far as I can tell, currently Capital has Labour bent over and assuming the position.

No wonder so many people are evidently so miserable!

I live in hope that the old dialectic will soon swing into action, and women and men of all persuasions can cooperate better in a more sustainable world.

It is right to conclude the new regime of re-regulation - nay, Over regulation, of the labour workforce will impact on families on more fronts than just family leave - Rebecca should be grateful her partner consulted with her about the probable impact the offered contract might have on their family life - many blokes would not have.

For a set of laws put up on a platform of flexibiltiy and fairness they contain a lot of regulations banning particular types of agreements - many of them come with penalties for both the worker and the employer; so the negotiating parties are free to negotiate openly and maturely on only provisions the government sees fit to permit - no flexibilty there.

If workers and empoyers agree on - unfair dismissal, union right of entry,the right to collectively bargain in the work place, or anything else the MInister does not like - penalties can be imposed -

We are free to negotiate up to a point; and once the term of the agreement is expired, there is no obligation to re enter an agreement and the fall back position is the imposition of the 5 basic elements enshrined in the bill.

The AWA will rule and then expire to leave workers with the bare minimum.

Rebecca'a concern about parental leave is valid - but it is only one small part of of the thrust of this package designed to bring about a new era of management prerogative.

THese laws more than anything underline the stupidity of the electoral process and to some degree the electorate - we vote on the campaigns and not on the underlying philosophies of the party; it has been self evident the desire for this type of worker control was uppermost in the minds of the government - the same can be said of the Kennet regime, although he did make some infrastructure improvements - these laws may be Howards undoing but a great deal of pain will be felt by those least deserving of it before changes can be made.

A really good article that had me on the edge of my seat. I admire your spirit and guts! But I totally agree with Redma, maternity leave should be a "god-given right" funded by the goverment. That would be a win win situation for both parents and private enterprise.