Paid maternity leave is a good idea in principle, but I'm bothered by the fact that it only goes to women, and the drastic income drop at the end of the designated period forces many back to work whether they like it or not.

Andrew Leigh http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1822 has recently been spruiking the benefits of negative taxation, which (if I've understood the concept correctly) would apply equally to men and women, and is received for as long as parents need - or choose - to stay home and look after the kids. Best of all, it's inherently means-tested.

An advantage for government would be that the negative tax rates could be adjusted up or down to suit prevailing economic conditions and/or population policies.

And did I mention that it's inherently means-tested? Rather than paying all mothers regardless of their capacity to support themselves, benefits go to parents who are truly in need.

'The will of the people is that women should be able to combine work and families.'

Really? Is that proven anywhere? Is there any 'will of the people' for men to be able to combine work and families? There is from me at least.

Out of interest, how does '14 weeks leave at the minimum wage' compare to the $5000 baby bonus?

'We know that 14 weeks leave would cost much less per year than the billion dollar baby bonus'

If that is so, why would you prefer 'maternity' leave over a baby bonus? Or do you want both? Or do you just want the baby bonus to be called 'maternity leave' because it sounds better or is more explicitly for women?

'In Sweden, women enjoy 16 months paid maternity leave at government expense'
Yes, but have you seen the taxes in Sweden?

If agreements can be reached between employees and employers for paid maternity leave, that's fine; even though it could impact on prices, the public could overcome any increase by avoiding the companies involved.

But, to expect money to pay mothers who are not working to come from the public purse is outrageous. New mothers should be grateful to be able to resume their jobs after the child is old enough to leave with relatives or in a childcare centre.

Despite all the babble about 'equality' and women being able to act like men if they choose to, women are the ones who have children. If they can't cope with that, and a job, they should adjust the lifestyle to survive on one income until their kids are at school.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than subsidising child care to the extent the government currently does.

Others have already made the point but I'll go there anyway.
Drop the sexism and let families decide which parent is better doing the stay at home part.

Perhaps a rephrase of one the opening comments

"The will of the people is that parents should be able to combine work and families. It has been expressed plainly by numbers."

Men are often criticised for not taking a more active role as parents (I'm not sure if Natasha has done so). Proposals which further entrench the idea that the stay at home parent is the women perpetuate issues which are already high on the agenda of sections of the womens movement.

The proposal as maternity leave rather than parental leave
- Increases the economic pressures on families for it to be the mother who is away from work rather than letting families decide according to their circumstances
- Increases the gender related costs of employing women compared to men, possibly reducing the employment opportunities for younger women.
- Serves to perpetuate the idea that parenting is womens work which has flow on impacts

The simple solution is to make a parental leave after a childs birth a decision for the family involved. Some safeguards could be put in place to ensure that families did not double dip.

I suspect that in many instances the initial care will be done by the mother to facilitate breast feeding and to provide some recovery time but at least it's the parents choice then rather than something enforced by economic circumstances.

R0bert

Well said R0bert. Yes I agree that if the period is 14 weeks, then its most likely going to be taken by women, given that breastfeeding is best for the child, and that some recovery time is needed. That said, it is possible to find employers who are flexible enough to combine work and breastfeeding - it doesnt leave much spare time and usually requires sitting up during the night expressing, long past when baby can safely sleep through the night without a feed.

I agree with your comments though that this should be referred to as parental leave, and that families be encouraged to work out arrangements that best suit them.

“The will of the people is that women should be able to combine work and families. It has been expressed plainly by numbers. The job of the government is to make that feasible and equitable in the interests of the whole population, especially the children.”

Did I miss a referendum on this issue? To suggest that the will of the people can be expressed purely by numbers is flawed to say the least. Some may not wish to combine work and family perhaps until their youngest is at school. Some families have no choice but to work to be able to pay off their mortgages and rising fuel and food bills – it is not necessarily “will” but necessity.

On the other hand some mothers/fathers do prefer to keep working for other reasons other than income. We are a mixed and varied bunch we families.

What about women who are not working when they become pregnant and have a partner with an income? It is discriminatory that benefits might be paid to a working parent but no relief provided to a non-working parent. What about a means-tested income splitting policy for a period of time (perhaps ending when the youngest child is to attend school).

Why do governments and politicians keep ignoring the fact that not everyone wants to be a “working family”. Where are the incentives and support for those who might wish to raise their children at home? Governments generally don’t give a flying toss about women or men who decide to stay at home to parent in spite of meaningless phrases about the “interests of children” or “what is best for the child”.

As Robert said - it is the parents who can decide what is the best for their children and if governments wish to provide support then how about supporting a wider set of choices.

In other words lets fight for some flexibility and some real CHOICE rather than be constrained by a narrow definition or view of work and family.

Country Gal, welcome back. Sorry I've not gotten around to responding to your comment on another thread. Have you met Vanilla yet, she has been a breath of fresh air around OLO.

This issue is a bit of a pet gripe of mine. So often I see complaints from some feminists about the impacts on women of parenting, about men not doing enough of it etc but then all to often see well known feminists putting forward proposals which entrench some of the same stuff. I doubt that making it parenting leave rather than maternity leave would make a big difference in who stays home for those first few months but it may help to change attitudes.

We should also be looking at options to split early care between parents, mum might do the first month or two and dad do the second part. Both reduce their time away from work and both get some of that early bonding time. There are a range of options which might work to support parents and perhaps even reduce the impacts on employers if we think outside the idea that parenting is womens work.

R0bert

Yes if Australia is to continue to consider itself a first world economy then it should introduce paid maternity leave. Paying women for 14 weeks is very modest. Already low income families who are not married try to get the woman onto a single parent pension if they can get away with it.

Most women earn such low wages that they can't afford to pay for childcare for 2 or more children if they are not eligible for subsidised childcare places. As many as 1 in 5 Australian children are growing up in poverty and the lack of maternity leave and current method of funding childcare places exacerbates the problem.

Yes, I have heard of the baby bonus being used to buy a new toy for dad, a maternity allowance paid fortnightly to mum might stem such excesses.

If children don't have a good start in life, like adequate food, housing, exercise, stimulation, emotional stability, health care - they are more likely to grow into adults with stunted futures.

It would be unique and better for the children if mothers were encouraged to stay at home and be mothers instead of handing them over for the indoctrination they receive at day care centres. All hats off to the mums who are prepared to make a sacrifice in order to be there when their little ones walk and talk.

billie,

'Yes, I have heard of the baby bonus being used to buy a new toy for dad, a maternity allowance paid fortnightly to mum might stem such excesses.'

Hmmm. What's the assumption here? Where have you 'heard' this? Why is one(?) example enough to justify trusting mothers over fathers to look after the welfare of children? If such a fortnightly allowance was solely paid to mothers, would all mothers then not use one cent of the money for anything other than baby needs? If a father was providing all the income for the family, and the baby bonus goes into the consolidated revenue of the family, why is it such a crime for the father to buy such 'toys', given that the children are being looked after. Do you propose Maternity leave money being paid in vouchers for food, or is it only fathers that cant be trusted? Is maternity leave to be spent at the discression of mothers, but the baby bonus only to be used for expenses relating to children?

WOW. I wonder if Stott wrote the title. Extremely sexist.

"The will of the people is that women should be able to combine work and families."

No that is the will of feminists and some of those about to have families. It is certainly not the will of the people. You don't speak for me.

I know we have to start somewhere, but 14 weeks of PPL sounds so minimalist. Why not 6 months to each parent. After all, they are bringing new taxpayers into the world. It costs them at least as much as it does the state to raise a child to adulthood, to train and motivate them to productivity. The baby bonus alone is hardly worth getting into bed for, and those motivated by such symbolic gestures, are hardly hotbeds of economic activity. True blue aspirationals however, are seriously disadvantaged when forced into higher tax brackets just for thinking of having kids.

No I say; totally inadequate. Bring on a royalty system, where parents claim 5% (each) of their child’s gross capacity to earn for the rest of their lives. This could just be added to the prevailing tax scales and collected by existing bureaucracy without additional administrative costs. Let’s not forget any past child support collected by CSA for example; treat it similarly to HECS debt and have it pad back to the original contributor. Generation Z doesn’t yet know how privileged they are and how difficult it’s been for gen X, relentlessly squeezed by reckless boomers and narcissistic Yers. Or Y, because life is short and no one understands…

Natasha,

You're discriminatory. How can a bloke access maternity leave? And I expect uproar among many of those couples in a homosexual union.

A GOOD TEST of viability of 'paid maternity leave'....

Natasha can advise her superannuation fund to invest all her savings in a small company (20 employees 60% female) which now has to pay "paid maternity leave".... and she can swim or sink on the economic impact that such a thing has on her own super.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend how this issue must be made 'government or nothing' policy?.. well political bigotry and ideological bias might be the answer..or.. perhaps Natasha is just whining because she did not get 'paid' to fulfill her biological duty?
Or.. because she is a confused silly socialist who fails to recognize the harsh realities of competitive life.

Here is the economic 'sense' this makes.

COMPANY "X" now has to pay its female workers..'not to work' so.. not only are they paying her 'not' to work, they are also paying someone ELSE ..to work. Thus the direct labor cost of a manufactured product has doubled.

THE PRICE of their products now must be increased, because otherwise they cannot sustain the maternity leave cost.

THE COMPETITIVE EDGE...is now lost, people see other products are cheaper.. so they buy them instead of company "X"s

DOWNWARD SPIRAL. Now that sales of company 'X' have plummeted, they can no longer afford to employ the people who make their product, and the put off 30% of their workforce, because now they are making less.

THE END GAME.. is simple...they go bankrupt. Maternity leave payments cease, a job to come back to dissappears everyone is out of work, homes are lost. Can someone show me an 'upside' in all this?

This is as simple as A+B+C=D

If people CHOOSE to have children, they should structure their economics and plans accordingly..don't burden an employer with your biological aspirations.

Hello Boaz,

Unfinished debate 29/4 - 1/5:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1722&page=0#34063

Please return.

Cheers.

Natasha,

The Parliament does not follow the wishes of the people and probably never has since Federation. Both the Coalition and the right faction of the Labour are to the right of political Liberalism:

"Liberaliam my defined in Sporit and in a Body of Doctrine that which is dedicated to expression of personal freedom in every sphere of
life..." to ensure "eternally" secure the ideals of the rights of the individuak and "beyond the province of any political authority".

Herein, I suspect the, Democrats are the true Liberals [philosophically]. If the people want paid mums, that the way to go.

Yet, what party would allow:

- A Bill of Rights
- Citizen referenda [on issues like paid mumd]
- Ostracization [Removal] of the Paty leader by the People. I would like see Iema go now.

O.

More middle-class welfare.

A Howard legacy and in the hands of the left will become an expansive absolute. But things will likely stay the same, on a social level (traditional gender roles)... another Howard legacy. The difference now is that the left really are masterful manipulators of the public (sentiment) and this will more or less form the distinguishing feature of their governance.

trade>"More middle-class welfare."

As opposed to upper-class welfare proposed by the right? You know trade that both sides have such flaws, but in different areas. These people and ideas should be rooted out of our governing class.

I'm amazed that there are people out there that think this Labor government is a leftie.

Another aspect of having babies is the baby bonus. At the moment I believe the baby bonus is given to anyone who has a baby and is not means tested. I can't see the need for those who can afford a baby to be paid a baby bonus on top of paid maternity leave (if they are working).

I also believe that the baby bonus should be paid once only to enable a family to prepare for parenting but once that is done the cots and baby bottles etc can be re-used for any subsequent children.

The baby bonus was implemented to encourage families to have more children (Peter Costello's one for each parent and one for the country comment). This was unbelievably short sighted and takes no account of the importance of sustainability.

I mention the baby bonus in light of this article because it is relevant to how we need to re-examine some of the policies surrounding families and children.

A "payment to mums" is such a ridiculous crock, it is difficult to know where to start.

Small business, which forms the backbone of Australia's economy, is already under siege from a constant stream of know-nothing politicians piling on endless red tape, iniquitous taxes, interfering bureaucracy. This is yet another potentially back-breaking burden.

(Yes, Boaz, I am right behind you on this.)

The moves by businesses such as Myer are 100% self-serving, and conducted in the full knowledge that if such laws were to come into effect, it would drive even more business away from small companies, who would become less competitive, and into their stores.

Six weeks paid leave, which is what they are offering, is way, way less than it costs them to hire and train a new recruit, so it is their way of making an investment in the percentage of those who might return.

For small companies, the relative costs are astronomical. Let's assume that 10% of women at Myer take advantage of the payment. That's noise. Now consider the impact on a three-person business, and the cost of replacing just one employee.

What will happen, of course, is that no sensible small business manager can afford to consider employing women of child-bearing age. And that's half of Australia's industry, closed to them in an instant.

Traditionally, the drop from two to one salaries when children arrived triggered a change in lifestyle, not a serial whinge that the government should pay for your home cinema.

1. According to Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, Article 33, Family and professional life
1. The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection.
2. To reconcile family and professional life, everyone shall have the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and the right to paid maternity leave and to parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child.

The minimum paid maternity leave in European Union is 14 weeks, but it is much longer in most European countries.

The top 5 countries with the best paid maternity leave are the following
Sweden 480 days 68.5 weeks (80% up to a ceiling the first 390 days, 90 days at flat rate)
Norway 54 weeks (12.5 months) (80%) or 44 weeks (10 months) (100%)
Hungary 24 weeks 100%
Italy 22 weeks (80%)
Chile 18 weeks 100%
The top 5 countries with the worst paid maternity leave are the following:
United States 0 weeks
Australia 0 weeks
Tunisia 30 days (approx. 4 weeks) 67%
Bahrain 45 days (approx. 6.5 weeks) paid 100%
Egypt 50 days (approx. 7 weeks) 100%
NO COMMENTS, AS AUSTRALIAN I FEEL SHAME!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

When I say The minimum paid maternity leave is 100%, 80%, 67% etc I mean % on their basic wages, salary,( not on overtime or other special benefits )
Hungary 24 weeks 100%
Italy 22 weeks (80%)
Tunisia 30 days (approx. 4 weeks) 67%
etc
Antonios Symeonakis

Dear Antonios....

you forgot one vital piece of information.

WHO PAYS for it? Government or..the individual company?

That is err..rather vital in assessing this issue.

(Yes Pericles, duely noted)

BOAZ_David,
There is not a standard system who pays the money in various countries, in some cases the taxpayers pay the money, government, in other case a mixed system (taxpayers-employers or taxpayers-employers-employees, or employers only.

Antonios rather than talk off topic on another thread about this I'll take the discussion up here.

"Maternity leave is different from the parenting leave, The countries which give paid maternity leave, give parenting leave too but most times not so big paid parenting leave."

I'm not very concerned with how other countries do it, rather that we go for the best solution we can. I've discussed this earlier in the thread and suspect that in most cases because of biological constraints and social expectations the leave would be taken by the mother but I do think the choice should rest with the parents involved. I'm in favor of reducing societal enforcement of gender roles and maternity leave instead of parenting leave enforces gender roles.

If it's paid maternity leave it makes the economic choice for the father to be the stay at home parent even more unrealistic for most families. It eliminates options which don't need to be eliminated.

As I pointed out paid maternity leave may reduce the work opportunities for young women (especially if the employer was going to have to pick up the tab). Parenting leave at least reduces the risk of gender based discrimination.

R0bert

I agree with Robert. It absolutely should be parental leave. It is nowadays not at all logical for the mother to be the one to take leave for any number of reasons. It is a decision that should be left to the parents. I'm disappointed that Natasha only refers to 'mums'.

It is funny how many people think that it is not possible considering Australia is the only country, with the USA, not to have some sort of paid maternity leave. It clearly can be done. ASymeniokis gave a pretty good list. Here’s a link for the skeptics.
http://www.childpolicyintl.org/issuebrief/issuebrief5table1.pdf

If anybody thinks that the standard of living of the citizens in many of the countries listed is not on par with that of Australia you’ve succumbed to propaganda

Steel,

obviously. Its inherent in my statement.

It was the right who ushered in this paradigm of buying off the middle classes with welfare payments.

Also, upper-class people have babies and buy houses, thus they get the baby bonus and first home buyer handouts too. Greedy well-to-do taxpayers who expect equal and inclusive treatment.

Mostly however, a bit of welfare to the upper classes (say 5%) pales in significance and longer term implications of addicting the middle-class masses (90%) to handouts.

Govt has been running large surpluses, indicating that taxation is too high. This is a bit complicated as cutting taxes or increasing spending are both potentially problematic in myriad ways.

Personally, l would prefer to see some moderation in taxation and improvements to health, education and infrastructure. Alas, the govt has to keep the coffers full as they need their electoral pork barrelling war chests to buy off the voters.

It is what it is.

Well, I have a 1 month old daughter, and I don't agree with paid maternity leave. The baby bonus came in handy at Harvery Norman though. Just jokes, it basically went straight to the doctors. I just don't agree with this 'I should be able to have a baby without it affecting my lifestyle at all' theory.

If we must have PARENTAL leave...

I agree you cant just pay it to women only.

Employers are going to naturally and rightly prefer men if women take the payment and they are funding it. I don't think this is desirable for women. So until men and women are equally likely to take parental leave, the government must pay.

I realy think it's a bit much for some woman on $100k plus to be paid 6 months on full pay to not work, while some working mother on $35k pays for it. It should be a flat rate payment if you must have maternity leave, probably set at the minimum wage.

In the end though I'd rather the government just let couples with children combine their tax free threshold when only one is working. I don't agree with taxing people and then handing it back. It's a waste.

maternity leave is given to pregnant women before the birth and immediately after the birth to protect her and the child. Parental leave is after the birth and when the mother is in position to return back work. THEN MUST BOTH PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT FOR LEAVE AS THEY ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD AND FOR A BALANCED DEVELOPMENT (POOR ENGLISH) FROM THE CHILD.
Is it difficult to understand that a pregnant woman needs special treatment,protection before and after the berth, which does not need the man?
I do not disagree with you about the parental leave but first come the maternity leave as a HEALTH PROBLEM, as a basic health problem for the mother and the child.
I will give information about the parental leave but at the moment I have no time.
yvonne
I want from you to try to understand me! I understand you and I agree with you about parental leave, this is an other story from the maternity leave.
regards on both of you!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The maternity leave is paid, except in Australia and USA, the parental leave may be is not paid but last more time.

“In Sweden, women enjoy 16 months paid maternity leave at government expense”

That is a lie, It is at the Tax Payers Expense.

And Sweden has a female suicide rate of 8.5 per 100,000, 70% greater than Australia’s rate of 5 per 100,000.

So if we are to follow Sweden’s example, will it be at the price of increased female suicides?

Does all that paid maternity leave time mean extra time dealing with screaming babies, pushing mothers over the edge of reason?

My personal view is

If you want a baby, do what my ex-wife and I did, work out the real finances first and whether you can afford it. Do not go looking for handouts.

The bottom line, having a baby is no different to owning a car,

If you cannot afford the running costs, don’t get banged up.

and back to being a tax payer, why should I be forced to pay for the product of someone elses sexual dalliances?

Antonios the proposal in the article is for more than "before the birth and immediately after the birth to protect her and the child"

Natasha mentions the figure of 14 weeks on a number of occasions

"we already know that a 14-week government-funded scheme at the minimum wage not only represents the International Labor Organisation standard for support, but would be affordable and avoid burdening small business".

Whilst that period may be necessary for some mothers recovery I expect that in most cases the period you describe would be far shorter than 14 weeks. Leaving aside the overall rights and wrongs of employers and or taxpayers paying for a couples decision to have children there is no need for the government to mandate that primary care over the first few months of a childs life is done my the mother. Thats a decision for the family involved.

R0bert

R0bert
Thank you, and very sorry for my comments, I did not mean you!
1. The 14 weeks is the minimum paid maternity leave for European Countries member of EU. The maternity leave is a must for health reasons, last year my daughter lost her overdue child in Adelaide of cause bad advices from the hospital, One day do not worry the overdue, next day the child died. I mean pregnant and child need the leave.
2. Paid leave
R0bert you are a good person. Why do you put first the money and after the mother and child? IF R0bert all other countries (except USA) can pay the money then we can pay too. We have a whole continent, so rich country, so skilled and hard working persons and you think we will have problems?
3. About employers, small business. Australia is one from the top countries with part time work, with casual work. small business can do it one more time with maternity leave.
4. Who will pay the money?
There are many ways to find the money for paid maternity leave. I will write here a way where we can share the costs, not only the government (taxpayers) not only employers not only employees. For example 50% the government, (in most countries governments pay the whole amount), 30% employers (there are countries where employers pay 100% of the maternity leave) and 20% employees, I victimize them but they will have the benefits and of cause it will help to start running the system.
There is not problem if we increase or decrease a little bit the amount from any part or if we have to pay weekly, monthly or yearly, if...if. We have the statistics, it is a very easy task.
R0bert
If we like to give the maternity leave then we can do it very easily. If Uganda, Albania, Paraguay and Cambodia can pay maternity leave then Australians can do it and AUSTRALIANS CAN DO IT BETTER!

Regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios, "Why do you put first the money and after the mother and child?"

I've got mixed views on the paid aspect of this. My main priority is not to further entrench gender roles into the care of children.

You are aware of the reasons to support paid leave so I'll stick to reasons why I'm not sold on "PAID" parenting leave. No order of priority.
1/ The world is overpopulated as it is, I don't see humanity having a pressing need for increased number.
2/ My priority lies with my son, government funded systems which use my tax dollars to support other peoples choices take away from my priorities.
3/ Tax and government being what they are there is guarenteed to be wastage in the system.
4/ Like a lot of government payments it was not available when my son was born and we paid our own way. Should I now be forced to compound that? Like the first home owners grant, the baby bonus etc I've never received the benefits of these schemes but continue to pay that others might have those benefits.
5/ There are a lot of complications around this. Should we pay extra to the unemployed during that period? If not it would encourage parents who are planning to be full time carers to delay advising employers until the period was us so that they could collect the pay?
6/ On principle I'd rather have the government butt out of my pay packet and let me fund my own priorities. The continued push for more government safety nets results in less real freedom of choice for those who take responsibility for their own choices.

R0bert

ASymeonakis “For example 50% the government, (in most countries governments pay the whole amount), 30% employers (there are countries where employers pay 100% of the maternity leave) and 20% employees”

Lets go through that list of funding sources

20% employees contribution I ask the question again…

“why should I be forced to pay for the product of someone elses sexual dalliances?”

30% employers contribution, I ask the question

Why should my employer not be able to grow his business or pay me more because he is forced to pay for the breeding choices of someone who happens to work for him?

50% from government – now we all know that government is merely the conduit responsible for misdirection of your and my taxes, therefore this is not government funded but you and my funded contributions, the usual socialist lie that government provides for us, when all it really does is burden us with immoral taxes.

Of course the theory is we are going to have jobs and income from which taxes will be extracted to pay for all this maternity leave.

The way things are going Krudd and Co are running us into yet another “Recession we have to have” no one will be able to afford to have more kids, many will not be able to maintain the ones they have got, except of course the fat cat bureaucrats and civil servants who have secure tenure for life.

It is a bleak future when people are no longer held accountable for the children they sire and expect the wider community to subsidise their issue.

Robert “Whilst that period may be necessary for some mothers recovery I expect that in most cases the period you describe would be far shorter than 14 weeks.”

When we compare:
child birth, being a natural act and one for which women were designed
versus
bypass surgery, something which was not “natural” nor was I designed to endure and got a medical certificate for 6 only weeks full and 6 weeks partial for which to claim income protection insurance,

I would concur with your view.

R0bert,
1. overpopulated world. What do you say R0bert, last year with Howard government we had about 200.000 new migrants. Do you think Howard love migrants or we need them?
2. your priority lies with your son. No one asked you to change your priority but we asked you to support the paid maternity leave for the benefits of mathers and children for the benefit from our society and Country.
3. Tax is guaranteed to be wastage, Generally you have right but if we add the paid maternity leave, then they will have less changes for tax wastage.
4.it was not available when my son was born. R0bert WHAT DO YOU SAY R0PERT? IF EVERY ONE THINK LIKE YOU THEN WE HAD TO STUCK ON THE STONE AGE! It is seemed that you are ungry because you did not take maternity leave and you want to punish the other mothers! We love and care for the people, for our society, for the next generations and try try to improve the general conditions. Do you think is right if I tell that I do not care for schools because I have not children? Do you think is right I do not care for police because I never problem with any one?
5. There are a lot of complications around this. Are you joking R0bert? Today we can solve really complex problems, this is very simple problem.
6. On principle I'd rather have the government... Do you believe few dollars more for maternity leave would limit your freedom of choice? Are you so weak? Do you feel so weak and you think few hundreds dollars per year will limit your choice?
R0bert You are not so bad as you try to seem! Let's support the paid maternity leave as any other country in the world! (As UK!)

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios I've taken the effort to outline some of the reasons why I'm not convinced that paid maternity leave is a good idea. They are not issues for you. That happens.

I paid around $100 the week before last for some new school clothes for my son. Can you supply your bank details so I can withdraw the money to reduce the impact of that purchase on my financial situation?

No! Why not, maybe the expense of raising my son is not your problem. Would you be upset if I found a way to get access to your money and started to use it for my child related expenses?

That's what these schemes do, take money from others for expenses which are not primarily their responsibility.

If you feel so strongly start a trust fund which provides paid maternity leave and ask those who are completly convinced of it's worth to contribute.

I see some benefits and some disadvantages to the proposal. I'm undecided about it but your dismissal of my concerns because they are not yours does not help your case.

R0bert

It's long overdue.

Dear Antonios,

I spent yesterday morning walking with more than 28,000 other women and their families at the Melbourne Mothers' Day Classic, a breast cancer fundraising fun run.

When I had my kids I had access to paid maternity leave. You'd think, more than thirty years on, that most women would have that entitlement. But we don't. Only a third of women have access to paid maternity leave.

Paid maternity leave is long overdue. Make your submission to the Government's Productivity Commission inquiry now. There's a real chance we could win this thing and we need your help.
www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/itslongoverdue

Australia and the United States are the only two OECD countries that do not offer paid maternity leave.

Without a government-funded scheme, paid maternity leave in Australia has been left to us to bargain with individual employers with varying results. Often employer schemes exclude workers with less than 12 months service (and that's 24% of women of child bearing age). And the significant number of women working as casual employees also miss out.

Without a statutory paid maternity leave scheme, two thirds of women workers, with little bargaining power, receive no financial support to take leave to have a baby.

You can help change this by making a submission to the Inquiry, telling your story, and urging them to recommend a paid maternity leave scheme. Make a submission now at our website.
www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/itslongoverdue

Continue

'Often employer schemes exclude workers with less than 12 months service '

So do you really think employers should have to put up with hiring a woman, who 6 months later goes on paid maternity leave? Do you really want employers to employ women? I've never been an employer, but I cant imagine wanting to employ women, if I know in 6 months time they could be asking for 3 months paid leave, while I pay someone else to do their job. This will actually hurt all women of child bearing age.

The government already pays $5000 per baby, which the www.rightsatwork.com.au admits is pretty close to a taxed 14 weeks on minimum wage.

The Productivity Commission is accepting submissions up until 2 June. Everyone who supports paid maternity should make a submission to make sure their voices are heard.

The ACTU proposes a national system of 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full income replacement. In our model, the Federal Government would fund a maternity leave scheme of at least 14 weeks, paid at federal minimum wage rates plus 9% superannuation for all women including those who don't work. Employers would contribute a top-up payment to fully replace the income of working women who earn more than the minimum wage.
part two
If the Government or employers want to do better than that, I will be the first to applaud. The campaign has a real shot this time - and you can help finally deliver paid maternity leave to Australian women. It will be a momentous historical achievement. Please make a submission now.

The next time I walk in the Mothers' Day Classic I want all the women to enjoy the same right I had 30 years ago.

Sharan Burrow

ACTU President

ASymeonakis

Hope I'm not too late for this thread.

I'll certainly be putting in a submission to the Productivity Commission. I have tried to find out more specifics on the proposed legislation, but there is not a lot publicly available.

As you seem to be the most informed here on the issue, are you able to clarify a few concerns of mine ...

1. How would self-employed women be catered for?

2. In the case of women who are having a second or third child without having returned to work between pregnancies, how would they be catered for?

3. Is there any chance of the legislation being for 'parental', as opposed to 'maternity', leave, so that either parent could apply for paid leave within that 14-week period?

4. Is it double for twins? (Just kidding!)

Dear SJF
I am planning to open a new thread in 1-2 days about the maternity leave, about Union's model and campaign about it, etc. Then I will give plenty informations about maternity leave. I think we are in good way!
Please give me a little time. thank you.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide