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...
.