“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.