Well if I had his (Latham's) pension I reckon I'd be writing something along these lines too! But then again I might just be too busy working and being a dad to worry about it.

While I agree with the thrust of the article, I don't think we should go overboard. Planius' statistics show, for example, that we are still averaging fewer than forty hours a week.

And although I have no reason to believe the tables are anything but accurate, I do not buy this "it must be an Australian thing". I have worked for multinational companies and through them have seen first-hand the work habits of my colleagues in upwards of twenty countries, and every one of them worked harder than their Australian counterparts. Even in Germany, where most of them had six weeks annual leave, their work habits left us in the shade.

While there may be many extremely toxic workplaces around, the stark reality is that we as a nation revere two things. We idolize the rich bloke, no matter how the money is earned or who suffers along the way, and put him on a pedestal. And as a counterbalance, we have the overt bludger, who is known for the amount of work he can avoid, and is a hero among his mates in the pub. The cultural change that is necessary to mellow these two extremes into a workplace that can earn our respect, is beyond human imagining. It is unlikely to happen while we still call ourselves Ostrayans.

The only answer is, unfortunately, that to which the article refers. To be able to retire on the pension that only a politician can achieve, paid for by the rest of us who are forced to carry on juggling the family and the crust.

Awesome article, it touched on a lot of very real issues. I have rearranged my hours to suit some school drop offs and after school pick ups, and yes being one of the first out the door gets stares sometimes. I think most are used to it now and some might even note that the days when I don't have my son I'm one of the first in.

Of course Latham's party probably had a lot to do with the "Capacity to Earn" provisions used in Child Support that make it difficult for separated payer parents (of either gender) to reduce work hours to better manage parenting responsibilities or to relocate if it involves taking a lower paying job (to stay near your kids). I have heard of parents who have been forced to return to Sydney to work after moving to a rural town to be near their kids and taking a lower paying job only to have CSA continue to assess their obligations based on previous earnings.

The gem that says that if you earn X dollars when you are part of an intact family then you have the capacity to earn X dollars regardless of what else changes in your life.

One more item for the list that makes it hard for some parents to balance family and work committments.

Like many my wife and I both work full time and have a young family. We both have had enough but hang in there. Quite frankly we haven't got the time to have a breakdown, nor as in Latham's circumstance the luxury of just throwing in the towel.

"Like many my wife and I both work full time and have a young family. We both have had enough but hang in there. Quite frankly we haven't got the time to have a breakdown, nor as in Latham's circumstance the luxury of just throwing in the towel.

Posted by PFH"

Planning PFH, its all about basic essential needs and planning.

Assuming you are a 'average' working Australian with a close to half a million dollar house mortgage, which you have to question its need and the personal effort to keep it up which will equate to your time from what you need to do which primarily is be a parent to your children who are your future 'you' because afterall that is the main purpose to build a house for most people (to raise children in).

Putting yourself in a position where you then fail to reasonably fulfill your duty as a parent then pointing to someone else who realizes what is of most value (realizing its not their ego of relating their identity with their job) and doing something about it begs the proper validity of your statement.

Sorry for using your post but this is what people say to justify their lives on most street conners relating to this area to live this unbalance life style. When I am about to die I want to see my children next to me and who Want to be there with love and appreciation from knowing I did what was right by them and not me (Mostly Me, stops when you create your first life but of course I am speaking for the men)

Sam

Well said Sam said,

There is definitely a trade off, if you choose to buy a house worth $500,000 you are probably choosing to trade time with your kids to pay the mortgage.

It is a choice that an expensive house is better for your kids than time with parents.

Personally, I would recommend to people to move to a regional area for a tree change or sea change to see what it is like.

My house cost just $190,000 and has four bedrooms, an inground pool and huge living areas. And its only five minutes drive from work.

This means I can spend at least an hour more with my kids than I could when I lived in Canberra (and commuting is worse in Sydney and Melbourne)and my wife doesn't have to work to help pay the bills.

Not everyone has total choice in this regards but parenting is often about sacrifice for the children.

I remember a magnet mum used to have on the fridge "Spend twice as much time and half as much money on your kids and they will grow up happy.

As one of six reasonably successful, well adjusted kids, it just might work you know.

t.u.s