Government funded maternity leave? You mean taxpayer funded maternity leave - including those taxpayers who have made do without handouts when they have had children, and those who have never had children.

Personal greed and unrealistic views on gender roles brought on the necessity for women to work (whether they wanted to or not). If there is to be a tax on greed, let those who caused it pay.

Many mothers choose to stay at home to look after their children because they believe it is not in the best interest of their children to be institutionalised from a very early age. There is strong data to support this view.
Many also find that the rewards and challenges of raising children far exceed those of participating in the paid workforce.
Paid maternity leave discriminates against women who choose to stay at home and look after their children and it also devalues their contribution.
Families where the mother chooses to stay at home also pay tax.
These taxes are already used to subsidise childcare for working mothers.
These taxes will be used to subsidise paid maternity leave (if enacted) for "working" mothers.
Furthermore, the double incomes of families where the mother works put upward pressure on housing prices and hence reduce home affordability.
Families of stay-at-home mothers are therefore pushed further out of the housing market.
It is clear that mothers who choose to institutionalise their children for personal gain are already advantaged in comparison to mothers who choose not to institutionalise their children.
The government should seek to address the situation of the disadvantaged and discriminated against mothers who stay at home before considering maternity allowance for an already advantaged group of women.
Thereafter, any maternity allowance should be based on an equitable level of taxpayer funding between working mothers and stay-at-home mothers.

Children are not a right but a responsibility.

If someone wants children they must be prepared to pay the price of that responsibility

This is just more socialist drivel and levelling.

It is bunkum

It is the sort of garbage which has seen every other stupid socialist expectation of creating "heaven on earth" fail.

I am also against paid maternity leave. The reasons have been touched on by other posters.

Btw: An observation. When one is standing to the far Right, ANY initiatives to help others are looked on as Socialist drivel/Socialism by stealth. What utter twaddle!

If you view an image standing to the far right of it, it appears to be on the far left.

Something that has far more to do with YOUR position, than that which you view....

HOWEVER;- if you are standing SO much closer, you will clearly see how close to you your image is.

Such is life.

Yet another attempt to boost the concept of paid parental leave.

This one takes an interesting angle, new - to me at least - that attempts to place it into an international/legal/compliance framework. Which is a little bit concerning.

The acronym CEDAW is used on seventeen occasions. The words "discrimination" and "committee" occur twelve times each, while "protocol" (9), "rights" (8) and "victims" (5) are also prominent.

This tells me that the battle has moved out of the arena of common sense, personal responsibility and - one has to suspect - our own government's territory, and into those boggy marshes of international "yuman rights" law.

There is no possible justification to pay women for not working, simply because they have chosen to raise a family.

We managed perfectly well - some would say far better - when the choice was made without the distraction of welfare payments. This is simply another outgrowth of the dependency culture, exacerbated by the international yuman rights industry, which is itself the bastard offspring of a legal profession that has to invent new revenue streams for itself.

A pox on all their houses.

While I have a fair amount of sympathy for some paid maternity leave, due to the need of women to carry the children, the use of the discrimination card is a bit tenuous.

Based on equal rights, this would also imply paid paternity leave.

There are many solid arguments, discrimination is not one of them.

This sounds a lot like a Sharron Burrows, of ACTU, type argument that Australia is a terrible place even though it allows people access to services, it doesn't allow access to enough of other people's money i.e. taxes, to do what they want. (mind you it was only evil under PM Howard, now it is nirvana)

The culture in Australia being developed by the rich/poor (working families/ evil CEOs) ethos of the ALP government is developing into a massive battle of various lobby groups to try to grab everyone else's money.

Yesterday it was self funded retirees, today it's potential mothers and everyone is trying to justify why their group should get more money or a leg up from the "government", my taxes.

Personally I'd prefer to be taxed less so I can decide what needs funding. I note charities are suffering as a result of all this, generous people who used to give to them are now subsidizing, without their consent, the ALPs choice of recipients.

I think this is a bad idea, but see it being used as an exercise in power management by lawyers and lobbyists.

(Do people really need to be funded to have children, what do they do when that money, the subsidy, runs out?)

I hope it isn't in the budget.

We can ill afford it at this time and this allocation of revenue would be better utilised to offset the very real need of those who are not in paid work (pensioners, disabled, retraining the unemployed and those who find themselves suddenly without work as currentretrenchment patters are showing) and what about apprenticeships, surgery waiting lists etc.

Having children is not a right but a responsibility and we would be better off encouraging people to be able to stay at home if they choose.

It seems ironic that we pay child care benefits and paid maternity leave so that others can care for our children and yet those who might wish to care for their children themselves are largely ignored. Not to mention the extremely low wages and conditions for those who work in child care.

I sincerely hope that these sorts of middle class welfare programs don't overshadow the very many more social and infrastructure needs that we are faced with today.

It puzzles me why women who don't want to look after their children want children. Paid maternity leave results in child abuse with babies being put into day care and often neglected. Selfish mothers often drag kids out of bed at all sorts of hours so they can pursue their selfish pursuits. All this signing international agreements that fly in the face of decency is crap. Thank God we still have enough woman with the maternal instincts not being brainwashed out of them by this feminist crap.

Well let me predict the future here.

The next thing that may happen is that we, the employers, will be forced into employing a certain % of women in our workforce becasue, these paid maternity leave laws are about to drive a wedge between employers and child bearing age women.

Enjoy your job while you have it girls!

You would have thought that anyone with the slightest bit of common sence would have waited until the UFD laws were tightened before they introduced this baby hey!

It is naive to think that some legal grounds in international law will push maternity leave to the fore as a domestic issue. Since when has the Australian government (or any government for that manner) kowtowed on an issue because of some international protocol?

I think for paid parental leave to be a viable option we would need to restructure the whole family support system. Paid Maternity leave seems to have become a symbol to some taken out of context with the rest of the payments designed to help families (by taxing them, using up a portion of the money in overheads and giving the remnants back).

I also tend to suspect that "maternity" leave as opposed to parental leave works against younger women in the job market. It's awkward for employers and fellow workers to keep positions open for a sustained period, far better to keep the gender aspect of any legislative aspect to just the period where gender matters and leave the rest to the family to decide.

The author seems to have taken care to tick off most of the list to annoy a lot of people
- an appeal to international bodies because Australia signed a convention
- mentioning the pay gap without discussing why
- making out that staying home to raise kids is all self sacrifice rather than an aspirational goal for many
- generised reference to DV

I do get frustrated by those who advocate for "maternity" leave and at the same time bemoan the fate of women left with the responsibility of raising children.

Paid maternity leave would further reinforce the economic pressures on families for the mother to be the stay at home carer.

R0bert

PART ONE
Australia and United States are the only countries do not offer paid maternity leave. According to Elizabeth Broderick federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sharan Burrow president of the ACTU and Heather Ridout chief executive of the Australian Industry Group paid maternity leave is not a bonus, it is about a right to paid leave for working mothers recovering from childbirth to help establish breastfeeding and for all-important bonding to occur.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/maternity-scheme-is-overdue/2008/04/07/1207420296235.html
British mothers get 39 weeks' paid maternity leave, with six weeks at 90% of their previous wage and the 33 remaining weeks at a flat rate equivalent to $270 a week. The British Parliament intends to extend that to 52 weeks by May 2010.
Maternity leave: Prior to and after the birth.According to Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 - ILO, MATERNITY LEAVE Article 4. 4. With due regard to the protection of the health of the mother and that of the child, maternity leave shall include a period of six weeks' compulsory leave after childbirth. In most countries Maternity leave: Prior to birth is minimum 4 weeks.
Paid maternity leave assists with the direct costs of having children, especially the increased costs faced at the time of the birth of a child. It protects working women from economic hardship due to maternity and it may also encourage some couples to have an additional child. It can assist prevent child poverty.
maintain the link between a woman, post child-birth and her employment and career, maintains an effective right to work, Female labour market attachment will improve employment rates and retain valuable skills, necessary in the new economies, provides protection for mother and baby, by providing an income for a short period. This allows recovery from birth, maternal/child attachment/bonding and give breastfeeding the best chance of success.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
CONTINUE

PART TWO
Paternity leave is offered to new fathers around the time of the birth of their baby. The idea behind it is to allow fathers to play more a role during the crucial first weeks after a baby's birth.
Iceland 3 months paid paternity leave
Norway *(Outside EU) 6 weeks paternity leave ("use it or lose it") Some countries put restrictions, a minimum time for father. The system for parental leave try to give the time for women to improve their carriers and of cause to transfer responsibilities to fathers for their children.
Parental leave (additional to maternity+paternity) is time a mother or father can take off work in order to be with a young child,usually father's leave starts the third month after birth, either paid or unpaid.
Sweden: 16 months on 80 percent of salary, until child reaches eight years old. Can be shared between father and mother, with an incentive specifying at least two months for father. the cost being shared between employer and State.
Parental leave encourage the fathers to stay home and care their children!
Australia has one of the lowest levels of workforce participation for women aged between 25 and 44 in the OECD. We are ranked 23 out of 24 OECD nations.
Women with paid maternity leave are more likely to return to work (up to 90%) than those without,
Let's give the women the tools they need to develop their abilities and create their financial independence, let's create the conditions for equality between men and women
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

For those citing other countries which do have paid maternity leave as a reason for us to have it a couple of questions?

Are families eligible to recieve paid maternity leave in those countries which have it in a better position financially to take on the costs associated with raining children than families in our country?

If so then can you please provide a summary of the differences.

Please take into account all the other financial support structures which are in place to help families both in those countries and here.

R0bert

Good point R0bert.

>>Please take into account all the other financial support structures which are in place to help families both in those countries and here.<<

This is most often overlooked in these simplistic comparisons.

Another angle, which I would have thought equally important, is an assessment of the social implications of taxpayer-funded incentives such as this.

Is there, for example, any correlation between women-who-work and teenage drug abuse, youth crime rates and so on - i.e. is there also a social cost to such payments to add to the financial issues?

I agree with nearly all the anti PML posts here except for Col Rouge who has used his post to insult socialists.

While I would not call myself a socialist as such I am decidedly for the environment and for the more equatable distribution of income (and I guess against unfettered property rights with the emphasis on unfettered).

The only thing I can add to the to the case against PML that has not already been said is that for smaller enterprises particularly, not just businesses, any person hired to take over from the person on leave will usually only be temporarily and will need training. This is not good for either the employer or the employee.

Sorry, another point; PMT adds to the encouragement already provided by our governments to increase fertility rates in order to add yet more people to our already overpopulated country and world - madness at its very peak.

Pericles I'm not specifically against Paid parental leave other than a general objection to government manipulation of people choices and also the wastange involved when the government taxes me, wastes some then gives the remnants back.

I am concerned that the issue has become a symbol for some and that it's not been looked at as part of the overall picture. I get the impression that so much of what is presented to support the idea lacks real substance that there may not be real substance to the issue. The understanding of the author's slant on the issue contributes to that sense.

R0bert

Well it is not as bad as thought. Today's Canberra Times reveals that the PPL will not come into effect until 2011. It does not yet show it on the linked article (only on the hard copy CT) but those who will be in receipt of PPL won't qualify for the baby bonus nor Family Tax Benefits.

So that will reduce the tax burden a bit

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/long-gestation-paid-parental-leave-from-2011/1509233.aspx

I am not sure who is paying the PPL? Is it the employer, the government or a shared responsibility?

My reading of the PPL is that discrimination against women of child bearing age will decease because the grateful taxpayer will pay a flat rate for 18 weeks after the baby's birth.

Yes the employer will need to find a temporary employee for that 18 weeks, the temp will know at the 18 week mark if its going to continue or stop. If the payment was a proportion of the employees pay that would indicate that employers have to contribute.

In Australia it's very difficult to start a family and pay a mortgage without 2 wages coming in. The fact that PPL cuts out after 18 weeks will mean that demand for child care places for 18 week old babies will increase while demand for places for younger babies will reduce

You make it sound so simple, billie, when it is nothing of the sort.

>>Yes the employer will need to find a temporary employee for that 18 weeks, the temp will know at the 18 week mark if its going to continue or stop.<<

Who is going to reimburse me for the training I provide? Even a non-key employee will need a minimum of four weeks on-the-job experience before coming up to speed. Which means instead of having two employees working at 100% capacity, I have one new employee who may or may not work out, one employee taken from their normal tasks to train and oversee, and another working overtime to cover for the guy who is doing the training.

And who is going to call the shots at the eighteen-week mark? Do I issue an ultimatum that says "if you want to come back, you have to tell me on day 126". What will be the "rights" of the mother who can't for some reason, make a decision at that time?

Then there's the temporary replacement to think of. What if they have decided that eighteen weeks is enough, and the PPL person doesn't want to come back? Do I go through another round of training, losing productivity, and more money, as I do so? What if they turn out to be better than the PPL, are happy to stay - but I have to fire them.

It really isn't simple, billie. People are not simply units of production that you can swap in and out like spare parts in a car. Businesses - this doesn't apply to government departments, of course - are living organisms, that have a character and a soul.

Messing with the natural order of things by making it specifically financially unattractive for me to hire women of child-bearing age, is fundamentally counter-productive.

I am considering going for a three month holiday, probobly sometime in 2011.

Do you think my landlords might allow me to suspend the leases on my shops and let me re-commence them, without penilty, when I return.

While i'm at it, can I also send my 8 staff on 3 months leave without pay.

What do you recon, Hey?

Antonios I'm assuming that your post over on the marriage thread was intended for this one.

Whilst what I'd really like to see is more than I can ask for what should be possible to demonstrate if it's the case is that that total package of parental support available in countries with paid parenting leave is greater than the total package aready covered by Australia's existing parental support.

We have a baby bonus, unpaid parenting leave, options for part time work during the childs early years, family tax benefit's A and B, child care rebates, heavily subsidised education, sole parent pensions, various in school medical services and probably a bunch of other services and benefits which I can't think of right now.

They add up to a lot of money, far more I suspect than paid parenting leave so if other countries don't have the same range of benefits as us then it may be that parents are supported to a greater level here than in other countries with paid parenting leave.

I suspect that PPL is largely a symbol for many and that the debate is about the symbolism more than the actual level of support taxpayers provide to families. Am I wrong?

R0bert

The real issue is: How is it that my parents could raise 5 kids on one income without too much strain, yet today it takes both parents working full time to support one kid?
The economy has expanded, so where is the excess wealth going?
A. Company profits are soaring, wages have stayed flat, cost of living (mainly due to housing and transport) increasing. Rich/Poor gap has soared.
Rather then my taxes supporting yet more breeding humans, can't we set things up so that having a family is an achievable goal without welfare? Some of us would rather add to society in ways other than breeding.
The trend for some Australians is:
-Company profiteers to the degree that service becomes un-affordable.
-Political forces then move to subsidise that sector using taxes.
-Extra taxes come from social services for all.
End result is that the middle class welfare is paid for by the sections of society that can least afford it. The rich get richer...
.

You forgot to add "ner nerny ner ner and no returns", Col.

Pathetic.