Australia and United States are the only countries do not offer paid maternity leave. Really, I can not understand how other countries, small or big, poor or rich, developed or not developed can pay maternity leave and Australia can not!

Australian Union Movement has fought for paid maternity leave but two-thirds of women, the low income women, do not take it. According to SA Unions the ILO recommended standard of 14 weeks
was only found in one federal award for reserve bank employees.. http://www.saunions.org.au

According to Elizabeth Broderick federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sharan Burrow president of the ACTU and Heather Ridout chief executive of the Australian Industry Group(represents more than 10.000 employers)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

ALP government asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. The Productivity Commission is accepting submissions up until 2 June. The Commission is to report by February 2009. The Commission is to hold public hearings and seek public submissions for the purpose of the inquiry and is to produce a report for public release by government.
http://www.nfaw.org/media/2008/08-02-18.html

Everyone who supports paid maternity should make a submission to make sure their voices are heard.
SUBMIT NOW! http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/itslongoverdue

Minimum Paid maternity leave
The ILO minimum paid maternity leave is 14 weeks and Australian Union Movement would recommend the same provision for Australia.

Who pay the maternity leave?
The ACTU proposes a national system of 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full income replacement.

In Union's 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.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Like I said on another post, If you cannot afford to have children, don't and do not expect the cost of your sexual pecidilos to be born by everyone else.

WORDS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE.....da da da

"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."

WHAT planet are you on Antonios?

"EMPLOYERS top up"... myyyyy GOODness.. if you want to make me hysterical..that's the way to do it!

But what's this about 'WOMEN WHO DON'T WORK' getting PAID maternity leave? Is this the result of some people taking the strong end of the spectrum of recreational drugs or are they just insane?

err..if that's the case 'who' is their 'employer' ?

This is clearly a socialist plot to bring down the West.
I regard it as seditious.

Dear Antonios,

As the recent article in 'The Age,' March 23, 2008 pointed out:

"The endless debate about paid maternity leave in Australia - among OECD countries, only Australia and the US do not have paid leave - has become an embarrassment, with lingering notions that somehow raising children is an entirely private affair.

It is predominantly a personal matter, but the argument has been well won that children are a community responsibility, too. How they are raised, and how well, is important for all of us and the evidence is clear that small babies in particular - as well as their mothers -
benefit from full-time care at home.

In the modern era, with most mothers working at least part-time, who should pay for women to stay at home in the crucial first weeks?
It's time - it's beyond time - that Australian women had government-paid maternity leave. It is a question of equity."

As 'The Age' reports, only one-third of Australian women have access to paid maternity leave - and they are mostly educated, professional, higher-paid women working in large companies or in the public service.

Women in less skilled or less secure work - hospitality workers, for instance - get nothing.

Successive governments have failed to act on it. The Howard government ignored what appeared to be a sound plan to introduce maternity leave, favouring instead the baby bonus that now costs the taxpayer several hundred million dollars a year. Crucially, the baby bonus is paid whether women are at home or in the workforce.

The whole idea of maternity leave is to allow a woman to stay at home for the first few weeks of her baby's life. The Rudd Government has put the issue on hold while the Productivity Commission undertakes a review that reports next year.

Let's hope that something comes out of
the review because the losers in this are not just the families involved, but our entire society.

.

BOAZ_David,
"if you want to make me hysterical..that's the way to do it!"
Try to understand me!
1. Most countries worldwide pay 100% on the basic wage/salary of employees. There are not many countries which pay less. I know few countries, they are small, Meddle East poor countries. The Australia Union Movement does not ask for 20, 50 or 100 weeks (some countries pay much more than 14 weeks) but ONLY the minimum, 14 weeks. If you blamed the Union because asks for the very basics I could understand you but you think they want very much! Do you try to make me hysterical?
The cost of this to employers has been calculated nationally. If small business was exempt from this levy then the cost to larger business would be around $1.50 per week.
2. In South Australia 30% of employees are casual from them 61% are women. Do you want to exempt the casual pregnant women? Do you want to exempt the low income pregnant women? Do you want to exempt the pregnant women who need it most of all? NO!
3. BOAZ_David stop to be negative! It is not for me but for our mothers, sisters, wifes, daughters or granddaughters.
According to EOWA, paid maternity leave is increasingly seen by employers to benefit their organisation by:
Increasing the number of employees returning to work after maternity leave;
Reducing recruitment and training costs;
Improving staff morale and productivity;
Providing a cost-effective means of retaining skilled staff; and
Improving organisational efficiency through the benefits of long service, eg, institutional memory, industry knowledge, networks and contacts.
http://www.eowa.gov.au/About_Equal_Opportunity/Key_Agenda_Items/Work_Life_Balance/Paid_Maternity_Leave.asp
Do you remember in an other thread what Pericles wrote about Mayer? He did not know that the Mayer already pay maternity leave because they know that of cause it 90% of their employees will return work.
4. BOAZ_David paid maternity leave is good for Australian families, Australian society, for our country. I know some persons who do not like migrants or Muslims very much but who do not like to encourage and support women for more children.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Col Rouge,
First I am very sorry because I did not reply to you in other threads but really my time is not enough, I work 7 days per week and I am very busy, I tried 1-2 times but the system stopped me, I can not post many per day.
1. You are a hard person and I do not know how to change your mind!
Do you want a better future for Australia, for our world? If yes. Then we must create the best possible conditions for the children, for all the children.
2. Do you live alone far from other people or with other people? If you live with other people, in a city or town then you know that others problems sooner or later will become our problems, we care for the others because we care for our self.
3. The children are not cars, tools or property, they could add value, they could create value, they could bring our country, world, up-down. Do not underestimate the children, do not leave them alone, we (as society) have responsibilities for the children, for next generations.
A happy pregnant, a happy mother can create a happy child, a happy citizen, a happy society. The happiness is the base of democracy, the guard of troubles and instability. If you want to create responsible, mature people try to find the right way but do not be hard to pregnant women and MAINLY TO INNOCENT CHILDREN! Let's give the paid maternity leave! If the most conservatives in the most poor and non developed countries support the paid maternity leave then all Australians should support it.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy
Can you reply to Foxy for me? You know much better than me. Simple I say that Australian Unions, Society did not support women very much. The ILO included paid maternity leave in its third Convention which came into force in 1921,about one century later and we did not signed it! USA did not signed the convention too but many States pay the maternity leave.
At least the majiority of Australians support the paid maternity leave. A Newspoll survey last year reveals there is widespread support by Australians for paid maternity leave (76%)
http://www.nfaw.org.au/media/2007/07-07-13.html

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy,

'The whole idea of maternity leave is to allow a woman to stay at home for the first few weeks of her baby's life'

I would say all women can, as they receive a baby bonus that equates to at least 12 weeks minimum wage.

Anyway, using the word 'allow' is pure furphy. Anyone can CHOOSE to make sacrifices somewhere in order to have enough money to achieve this without needing a hand out. And I suggest if they are unable to they should reconsider having children.

I have just had a baby. Why is it anyone else's responsibility but my own to save up enough money to cover expenses while my wife doesn't work before having children?

'How they are raised, and how well, is important for all of us and the evidence is clear that small babies in particular - as well as their mothers -
benefit from full-time care at home.'
Obviously. But you are fighting from the wrong angle here. Until couples decide that the house 2 suburbs closer to the city, or that new bathroom, extra TV or yearly holiday will have to come second to a priority to have one of them take care of their own child, nothing will change.

I just don't think handing out money will achieve a change in people's prioriites. Having children IS a lifestyle choice. Your lifestyle WILL change. It's not society's responsibility to allow you to have children without having to make any financial sacrifice.

It's a perfectly valid question. So let's have the decision made at the ballot box, like any self-respecting democracy.

The acid test, of course, is for a political party to establish maternity leave payments as an unbreakable electoral commitment, ahead of an election.

We could then vote directly on it.

The shape of the payments would need to be spelt out, of course.

Is it to be paid for out of our taxes? In which case, how much would it cost us? Would singles pay the same tax rate? Is that fair - why not simply tax couples at a higher compensatory rate?

Is it to be paid by employers? In which case, how much would their obligation be?

Perhaps even more importantly, would the government apply sanctions against employers who turn away applicants on the basis that they are of child-bearing age, and might therefore be more expensive to employ? In my business, I can't afford to take the risk.

Or how about if a company paid higher wages to someone not of child-bearing age, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be whacked with a pregnancy overhead? Would that be OK?

On a more business/technical note, would I be allowed to accrue the potential future expense on my balance sheet, in the name of full disclosure of issues of material impact? Would that accrual be deductible, like an insurance policy?

In a democratic society, we should be allowed to vote on such matters, rather than leave the decision to be made in the backrooms where politics and big business collude and conspire.

Incidentally, any bets on whether the "let's subsidize pregnancy for all and sundry" platform would get up?

ASymeonakis “You are a hard person”

Unlike many who see a supposed “goal” and then work back from that goal to the reality of where we are; I start from where we are and look forward to what, among many other objectives, we might become.

I believe the best society is achieved by people accepting full and complete responsibility for the choices they make and not presuming a wider society is responsible in any way for those personal choices.

Re caring for others, compassion is a personal quality, it cannot be transferred or executed through government. Government can only treat people as uniformly “equal”. “Compassion” requires the beneficiary to be treated as a unique individual whose circumstances are different to all others.

“If you want to create responsible, mature people try to find the right way”
then you start by making sure they are held personally accountable and responsible for their personal decisions and not rewarded for failing to be responsible, by placing a safety net of social support underneath them.

I recall reports of when DDT was universally adopted as the cure for many things, as you are suggesting paid maternity leave is going to be some universal panacea. Then they found out it was not quite as wonderful a thing, especially as it quickly got into the food chain including the milk of breast feeding mothers.

As far as I can see, paid maternity leave is just another “socialist panacea”, sounds nice and cuddly, basic sentimentalist tripe but in the longer term, erodes the self accountability and responsibility of the individuals who are supposed to be responsible for the children they sire.

You may think me hard, I think and I have been told I am first and foremost a realist. Basing any goals or objectives on anything other than “reality” is a fools errant and not something I would seek to aspire to, despite its popularity among socialists who seek uniformity of outcomes, regardless of the overall diminished quality of life.

No system can ever protect all children from irresponsible parents, that is another fools errant.

I am going to be purposely contentious.

The following is not what I believe but what I think we might all benefit from if debated.

I am extending the parenting role which Foxy suggests is “It's time - it's beyond time - that Australian women had government-paid maternity leave. It is a question of equity . . . the losers in this are not just the families involved, but our entire society.”

We are talking here about how people should discharge the financial responsibilities for the welfare of their children

If the state is inclined to pay women maternity leave for a number of months, why do we not make children a wholly tax supported expense?

Everyone could be income taxed at say 60%, no income thresholds or individual allowances.

All other taxes remain the same.

The additional 30% or so tax income is paid back as a substantial pension, according to the child’s age for each child a couple (or parent) has responsibility for and (in divorces) paid to the one with custody or in proportion to A family court lodged parenting agreement.

This “system” would, likewise, largely remove the problems being debated on the “Child Support and Parents.”” thread

And since we see many parents acting irresponsibly with their money, 70% of the pension is to be paid as food, clothing and other vouchers, redeemable only at government approved retail outlets.

This way, children are securely raised, parents are not disadvantaged by divorce and as so many others (although not me) keep saying, children are our future, fundamental to the health of society and every child must be protected at all costs.



Before I post my response, I would like to see a few others post their view

Dear Antonios...I am trying to understand you..and I don't have a quarrel with the basic idea of paid maternity leave....

I have a BIGGGGG problem with the idea of ME, paying directly for another persons pregnancy choices!

I did NOT invest 100% of my superannuation and long service leave, all of which I could have lost withing months of doing so, (in 95) and been bankrupt and poor.. just to have then to pay for other peoples time looking after their children. no NO NOoooooo.. GET IT ? :)

This morning I took my car in for a repair.. my mechanic spent most of the time returning whining (justifiably) about the new "Safety" compliance regime in place. I'ts cost him over $3000 thus far to put little signs here and there, and other stuff.. more to come..and he employes just TWO people in a workshop! Then there is 'log books' and so on. Regular checks....

Ok.. safety is a good thing, but one sniffs some "Politicians/Union" hands in the shareholders/boards of safety compliance companies here.

If you wish to make maternity leave paid...FINE.. just do TWO things.

1/ Do NOT penalize or punish and employER in any way for this, or cost him money for OTHER peoples child choices.
2/ Ensure it is ONLY a government funded thing which we ALL pay for through our taxes because population is for the NATIONAL benefit.

grrrrrrr...

Small business is being bludgeoned to death at the moment. Don't add to it. Unless you want us ALL to simply pay Chinese laborers to do out jobs. One of my other business associates is doing that right now.
I don't feel happy looking at the faces of his current 8 or so Aussie employees who KNOW "time is short"

A S I think you understand why we have the current baby bonus, many will disagree but it is to reverse the falling birth rate.
Or at least that is what I think it is for.
And it is what I think you want this for is that true?
For the above reasons I think it is a good idea but no, sorry no not for non working mothers.
Yes Col it will cost us as child welfare does and much more but it could be worth while if we in time replace our selves at least in a rise in birth rates.
However to put your whole wish list as a union one AS is counter productive.
Unions have a retention problem , it is true to recruit you must first retain those you have and policy's that are not the wish of most are wasted.
Working women should and will get paid leave under Labor watch this space.
Some social engineering however is not union work in my view.

To enable women to combine work and motherhood is more than some warm and fuzzy utopian ideal: it makes sense.

Pru Goward, architect of a maternity leave scheme so far ignored by both sides of politics, argues that it is not just the "right"
thing to do, but the economically and socially rational choice.

First, it is not about who pays - clearly, it should not be a direct cost to employers, but accepted as a national responsibility.

Taxpayers who paid for maternity leave would ultimately benefit because they would retain vital members of the workforce and allow them to produce the next generation of Australians at a time when fertility rates are low. It makes sense to subsidise women to have families, rather than to penalise them for what comes naturally.
If a generation of working women sacrifice motherhood to preserve jobs and careers, it will cost us all.

Studies show that women who leave infants too early to return to work
are more likely to suffer depression and related illnesses (I know,
I was one of them - and my marriage almost broke up as a result), at huge cost to employers. As Goward writes, if the rejection of maternity leave was part of a "war against so-called radical feminism" then it wasn't feminism that lost, it was our women and children.

Foxy,

'To enable women to combine work and motherhood '
Women (and men) are already enabled to combine work and family, and many are doing just that.

' allow them to produce the next generation of Australians at a time when fertility rates are low'

Again, my problem is with the word 'allow'. It's a lazy assumption that women are not having babies because they cant 'afford' to. People generally afford what they want to afford. If people really want children they will have them.

'It makes sense to subsidise women to have families, rather than to penalise them for what comes naturally.
'
Why does it make sense? Where are they being penalised? Nobody penalises them, they just have to make sacrifices if they want children. As do men.

'Studies show that women who leave infants too early to return to work
are more likely to suffer depression and related illnesses (I know,
I was one of them - and my marriage almost broke up as a result), at huge cost to employers.'

See this emotional argument shows where you are coming from, but has no relevance. It was your (and your partner's I assume) choice to go back to work.

While we are at it, why don't we have a week off for women every month who are menstruating?

Additional information

Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 - ILO

MATERNITY LEAVE

Article 4

1. On production of a medical certificate or other appropriate certification, as determined by national law and practice, stating the presumed date of childbirth, a woman to whom this Convention applies shall be entitled to a period of maternity leave of not less than 14 weeks.

2. The length of the period of leave referred to above shall be specified by each Member in a declaration accompanying its ratification of this Convention.

3. Each Member may subsequently deposit with the Director-General of the International Labour Office a further declaration extending the period of maternity leave.

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, unless otherwise agreed at the national level by the government and the representative organizations of employers and workers.

5. The prenatal portion of maternity leave shall be extended by any period elapsing between the presumed date of childbirth and the actual date of childbirth, without reduction in any compulsory portion of postnatal leave.

According to Barbara Pocock associate professor

"Sakiko Tanaka has analysed the effect of paid parental leave on child health in 18 OECD countries between 1969 and 2000. This study shows increasing paid maternity leave significantly reduces infant mortality. A 10-week increase in paid leave - we have none - could result in a fall of between 2.3 and 2.5 per cent in infant mortality. A 10-week increase in paid leave reduces the mortality rate among babies aged 28 days to one year by 4.1 per cent. "
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/infants-cry-out-for-paid-maternity-leave/2005/07/07/1120704490601.html

Gentlemen,

According to an article in, 'The Age,' 23-03-8 - this issue was first
raised 30 years ago. Thirty years later the issue still provokes heated debate.

Supporters, including many academics and the Business Council of Australia, see it as a step towards what they believe is inevitable.
The Productivity Commission will look at the economic and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave and report back to the Prime Minister in a year's time.

The terms of reference include exploring what employers now pay; it will also identify pay models and their interaction with social welfare systems; assess the cost and benefits to business; examine women's workforce participation, employment and earnings; invetigate post-birth health of the mother and development of children from newborns to two years; and analyse financial pressures on families.

International studies link an early return to work to increased health risks for women, such as chronic tiredness, failure to fully recover from the birth, and the higher incidence of postnatal depression. There are greater risks to the baby's health and breastfeeding generally stops.

According to Dr Sara Charlesworth, senior research fellow at the Centre for Applied Social Research at RMIT University, Australia could learn much from Britain. 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.

The Swedes receive 18 months' paid parental leave; Italians get 47 weeks, and Russia 140 days.

According to women's groups and many academics, Australia's inability to pay its mothers is rooted in historical male workforce domination and sexism. Motherhood, they say, still means a substantial loss of earnings, demotion and insecurity in the workplace for many women.

"The current system is a result of a long history of male-dominated industrial relations and politics," said author, and director of Centre for Life and Work, Barbara Pocock, "Boys don't push out babies; if they did we would have Rolls-Royce maternity leave."

CONT'D -

Part of Australia's lethargy is explained in a Monash University study co-written by Dr JaneMaree Maher, director of the Centre for Women's Studies.

The study found that most women believed they were entitled to maternity leave and only found out about their entitlements after they fell pregnant.

Many also found when they returned to work that the nature of their jobs had changed, their clients had been taken from them or, worse still, they were made redundant while on leave.

Dr Lyndall Straazdins, a social scientist at the Australian National University, believes part of Australia's problem is that we view family life as somehow not linked to work life.

"There has been a devaluing of what it means to care for children and what it really requires and that's very connected to a gendered view of what's important and what's not - what's work and what's family,"
Dr Strazdins said.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found financial uncertainty contributes to women delaying motherhood and reducing the number of children they have.

Dr Deborah Brennan, NSW Social Policy Research Centre professor, paints a picture of two classes of mothers in Australia: those in the public sector, in large workplaces or in unionised occupations;
and the rest.

"Scientific knowledge about babies in their first months of life should also be driving Australian policy, but my sense is that it is not - not yet," she said.

Additional information

Paternity leave
is leave offered to new fathers around the time of the birth of their baby. The idea behind it is to allow fathers to play more of a role during the crucial first weeks after a baby's birth.
Iceland 3 months paid paternity leave
Slovenia 90 days paid paternity leave
Norway *(Outside EU) 6 weeks paternity leave ("use it or lose it")
Finland 18 days paid paternity (proposing to raise it to 25 days)
Denmark 14 days paid paternity
Estonia 14 calendar days

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.
Germany: 12 months, up until age of three. Paid 67 percent of salary, to a limit of 1,800 euros (2,730 dollars) a month; incentive for fathers to take at least two months.
France: 12 months, renewable twice up to child's third birthday. Some parents can claim a basic monthly allowance, currently 536 euros (815 dollars) per month.

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.

According to Public Health Association of Australia

4.Latest statistics show that Australian women have on average 1.75 babies, which is below the population replacement figure of 2.1 (Australian Social Trends 2005 in Australia Now).

5.Leaving paid maternity leave to the market and obliging employers to cover the cost makes women less attractive to employ and this creates a barrier to female employment and may influence women’s reproductive decisions.

you really have to be kidding

I do believe the public service still has maternity leave,

oh hang on labor and the unions have been selling that off.

So really you want to cut the public service and to save state governments being responsible for maternity leave we all should be.

You lot in the unions are really out of touch with reality.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent

What do you say Stuart ?
I want paid maternity leave for Australian mothers, pay parental leave for Australian parents (mother. father) I wrote this information about parenting and parental paid leave to show what happened in other countries, mainly in Europe and what in Australia, I wrote it to show how behind of the world we are.
What happened with us? Are we lazy, unskilled or irresponsible ? What is our problem Stuart? Is Australia poor, small, non developed country and it can not afford to pay maternity leave?
How all other countries afford to pay maternity leave except from Australia and USA?
NO, we are not lazy or unskilled or irresponsible, WE ARE IDIOTS WHO HAVE ACCEPTED NO PAID MATERNITY LEAVE!
"So really you want to cut the public service" What is this? Why do you think I want to cut the public service? Sure I want more respect to taxpayers money but not less public services.

You will find that it is labor selling off our public services

that is something you cannot deny
Electricity for starters.

Dont forget rudd is cutting public servants as well.

So it is not people like me cutting these payments as you lot are so far up the backside of labor you have no idea what you are supposed to do.

People like me dont take your crap but fight for representation not a dictatorship and follow the leader but stand and fight.

We know what is important and that is to stand and fight for the people, and that is my word unlike labors or the unions as we see with the budget.

Nothing more than a CLAYTONS BUDGET.

You may speak big but all that comes is a wimper

Labor and the unions are just fear mongerers just like the others.
I know how unions should be but hey people like me wouldnt touch you lot with a 40 ft pole.

Who can trust people that stand by the unions and labor or even the others as they just stood and watch what you lot did and are still doing.

Heiner
The justice project

Stuart Ulrich
Independent

Pericles "So let's have the decision made at the ballot box, like any self-respecting democracy"
Did you read ALP's program before elections? If yes then you know that we elected ALP because it promised us better working conditions for women, for mothers.
Do you know any country in the world which had a referendum for paid maternity leave? This is a very basic right, all other countries,big or small, rich or poor, developed or non developed pay maternity leave and they do not pay only 14 weeks as we want but more weeks plus many other benefits as paternity, parental leaves etc.

Col Rouge
"I start from where we are and look forward to what, among many other objectives, we might become." I did the same thing and I found that Australia is the only country in the world which do not pay maternity leave, paternity or parental leave. (In USA many states pay maternity leave). Why Col Rouge, why?
"No system can ever protect all children from irresponsible parents, that is another fools errant." Sure but there is huge difference from system to system. We try for the best we can do, we try,try, try...

BOAZ_David,
What happened with you? do not worry, the first, top priority is the government (taxpayers) they will pay the money, later will come your turn to ...take money for your grandchild! Every one, every where do it. let's extent our basic rights, let's make new parents with less stress!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I thought I was being very clear, ASymeonakis. Obviously not clear enough.

>>Did you read ALP's program before elections? If yes then you know that we elected ALP because it promised us better working conditions for women, for mothers.<<

"Promising better working conditions" is about as vague a commitment as you can get. Think about it another way - would you expect them to put in their manifesto that they would promise to make them worse? Of course not. It was just the usual verbiage that fills these programmes.

What I very specifically asked was this:

If a political party were to put to the Australian public a precise proposal on this matter, spelling out in detail what it would cost, and who would pay, do you think for one moment that they would be elected?

Of course they wouldn't.

Which is why none of the parties placed it in their manifesto, and why any legislation will have to be enacted deceitfully, in the full knowledge that the majority of voters would not agree with it.

This is not democratic.

>>Do you know any country in the world which had a referendum for paid maternity leave?<<

It doesn't need a referendum. Just to be a clear component of a party's strategy. Then we would either vote or not vote for that party.

That's democratic.

The reality, as you well know but are unable to admit, is that no political party would be elected if it included these kind of anti-business policies in their formal commitments to the Australian people.

So it can only be achieved by deception.

Legislation by deception is not democratic.

Incidentally, don't think for a moment that big business supports these moves because they love their staff. It's because they can more easily pass the costs onto the public than small businesses can.

So many years ago the ALP bought in child welfare payments, even the church of England fought against it.
They got it wrong it was not an act of communism.
We will get maternity leave for working mothers as Antonius says most have it now.
Why?
Our birth rate is falling, we except things like reading books to our children, even giving the computers.
We talk of importing workers to do the things we can not but we fail to understand current conditions stop women working or for some having children.
We will be a better country when we get paid leave AS mate some stand against this because you branded it a union fight, while it is it is also in the common good of us all.
Tax's? we constantly want to pay less for more services, some would be quite upset if everything they treasure was not funded by us all.
Our kids are our country's future they should have mum at home for a few months and we every one of us should fund better child care for every one of them.
We are about to do so, Kevin Rudd leads a caring team.
Tapp while I give no weight to anything you write re read your post, ask your self was it in any way adressing the thread?
Did it just continue your blind hate of my union movement and the ALP?

Pericles
The ALP from long time ego has the paid maternity leave as its key policy, bellow I will give you some information.

From 2004 federal elections
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has intensified debate on the issue by announcing paid maternity leave as a key policy in the lead-up to this year's Federal election.
In its 2004 National Platform and Constitution, the ALP announced its plans to introduce 14 weeks' paid maternity leave (PML). http://www.hcamag.com/hca_aus/detail_article.cfm?articleID=293

From 2007 federal elections ALP’s program
Article 19 A Better Balance between Work and Family
·encourage employers to provide more family friendly workplaces, including the provision of paid family leave, extended unpaid parental leave, family friendly rostering provisions, paid maternity leave….

11 Sep 2007 (before last elections)
Labor Leader Kevin Rudd has written committing to the following:”If elected I will ask the Productivity Commission to examine the effectiveness of different models to improve support for parents in the labour force with new born children, their likely impact on work and family preferences and workforce participation more generally. The inquiry would also investigate the cost effectiveness of different models, their likely impact on business and interaction with the
social security system. Labor would publicly release the findings of this report. "http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2-l0uy8d4LQJ:www.kids.nsw.gov.au/director/resources/news.cfm%3FitemID%3DFD5B2FBAC151C8E5E9A38A1940D2C389%26generatePDF%3D1+RUDD+paid+maternity+leave&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

ALP Government asked the Productivity Commission, which now examines all the factors about paid maternity leave and next February it will publicly release the findings of this report.
Everything was very clear before the elections, people voted the ALP because they agreed with it and last weeks survey shows that ALP popularity is more than 70%, the highest ever had the ALP, may be of cause the high publicity about the paid maternity leave.

Really I can not understand where is the non democratic

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear bleeding hearts, I must say that I agree with Col on this one. The're your kids, you provide for them or DON'T HAVE THEM!

After all, you now get paid to have them but obviously this is not enough you want more. Surely the baby bonus should be sufficient re-embursement for your choice to have a child.

Little wonder we all pay more for basic living because business owners won't, and shouldn't bare the costs of your life choices.
Additional costs of running a business are simply added to the prices we pay for goods and services or havn't you worked that out yet?

In the end if you can't afford something, borrow for it.

If you can't afford the repayments, then go without!

Oh goody

we have a child leading a party of followers asking

please sir can i have some more

Labor Leader Kevin Rudd has written committing to the following:”If elected I will ask the Productivity Commission to examine the effectiveness of different models to improve support for parents in the labour force with new born children, their likely impact on work and family preferences and workforce participation more generally. The inquiry would also investigate the cost effectiveness of different models, their likely impact on business and interaction with the social security system.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent

rehctub
"I must say that I agree with Col " there is no reason to say it because I know you very well! In a democratic system every one has the right to express his/her thoughts/opinion. The question is not what you say but what the democratically elected ALP government decides. You know the news about the paid maternity leave, even you know last week's survey. ALP popularity 70%.
rehctub
We need a strong and responsible opposition, all democracies need strong opposition, but persons like you sent the people direct to ALP!
THANK YOU!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Tax's we all pay them people without children pay for education, people who do not use public transport pay for it.
It is no surprise some refuse to see the benefits for every Australian if our kids are better for a more caring upbringing.
And if they are born.
Some balance between the often miss used baby bonus and this proposal would be an improvement.
Australia needs working mums to have children and we will get paid maternity leave for them, some unions have already done so.
If we took note of the cry it is not my child we would be an unhappy country surely its in the best interests of us all?

Belly
According to Australian Unions
· 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,
· PML maintains an effective right to work, Female labour market attachment will improve employment rates and retain valuable skills, necessary in the new economies.
· PML 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.
· paid maternity leave in conjunction with paternity and parental paid leave will assist the mother with her carrier and will bring the father closer to his child/dren.
· Benefits to the economy. 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. If more women are in the workforce this puts downward pressure on inflation and improves productivity by increasing the labour supply at a time of serious skills shortages. According to employers, the cost of replacing staff - including recruitment and skills acquisition - appears to be at least $10,000, and more for higher salary/skilled areas. Overseas experience shows that women with paid maternity leave are more likely to return to work (up to 90%) than those without, giving employers a real saving on the bottom line.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

You still fail to see the obvious, ASymeonakis.

>>From 2004 federal elections: The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has intensified debate on the issue by announcing paid maternity leave as a key policy<<

Errrr.... who won that election?

So for this last one, what did we get?

"If elected I will ask the Productivity Commission to examine the effectiveness of different models to improve support for parents in the labour force with new born children"

That is not a clear statement of policy, with costings and responsibilities attached. That is simply the politician's way of trying to say something without having to commit to anything explicit.

There was no opportunity to question the policy before the election, or ask him to cost his commitment, because he would simply say "we will consider the outcome of the commission"

That is what I mean about deceit. He knew full well that he was going to find a way to sneak the legislation through, covering himself with "commission" so that he neither had to i) take the responsibility himself or ii) take the costings directly to the electorate.

That's what I mean by a pretend democracy. We only pay it lip-service, because all the decisions are actually made without a mandate from the electorate.

Remember the "never ever" GST? We are being treated with the same high-handed condescension and disdain.

>>Really I can not understand where is the non democratic<<

That is probably because you do not understand the concept.

Antonios,

'Paid maternity leave assists with the direct costs of having children'
Well duh!

'It protects working women from economic hardship'
Wellfare can do that.

'encourage some couples to have an additional child'
Yes, but 'encourage' and 'some' are the key words here.

'maintain the link between a woman, post child-birth and her employment and career'

That link is already kept. Jobs by law are left open by UNPAID maternity leave.

,
· PML maintains an effective right to work, Female labour market attachment will improve employment rates and retain valuable skills, necessary in the new economies.'

see above

'PML 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.'

'Allows'? This is already allowed for the majority of couples who save a bit before children. Also the Baby bonus is equivalent to 12 weeks at minimum wage.

'paid maternity leave in conjunction with paternity and parental paid leave will assist the mother with her carrier and will bring the father closer to his child/dren.'
Rubbish. I'm close to my child without parental leave.

'If more women are in the workforce this puts downward pressure on inflation and improves productivity'
They're not in the workforce, they are at home being paid! Not very productive.

'cost of replacing staff - including recruitment and skills acquisition - appears to be at least $10,000'
So why don't all employers pay maternity leave. I know, because either this is rubbish, or they are already retaining staff due to UNPAID maternity leave.

'with paid maternity leave are more likely to return to work , giving employers a real saving on the bottom line.'

Again, obviously not if employers aren't currently paying ML, so they obviously don't see this value. How do you know that maternity leave is CAUSING the women to return, rather than women who are ALREADY more likely to return to work are in occupations more likely to get maternity leave?

As I've written in the past - the tragedy for Australians seeking personal pride in the achievements of their nation is their ignorance of a politically distinctive past of which there is much to be proud, and whose wonderfully subversive stories that shaped the national character are seldom told.

In the silver and zinc mines of Broken Hill, New South Wales, the miners won the world's first thrity-five hour week, half a century ahead of Europe and America. Long before most of the world, Australia had a minimum wage, child benefits, pensions and the vote for women.

By the 1960s, Australians could boast the most equitable spread of income in the world. The secret ballot was invented in Australia.
And in my lifetime, Australia has been transformed from a second-hand Anglo-Irish society to one of the most culturally diverse places on earth, and it has happened peacefully. No matter that it may have happened by default in a country where the 'White Australia policy' ran so deep that one Australian prime minister, Billy Hughes, was the only leader who refused to sign an international declaration that recognised all races as being equal.

Given the past, and by most standards of civilisation, the transformation is a remarkable achievement.

So, it's simple. Paid Maternity Leave will happen. And, years from now we'll all wonder what all the fuss was all about.

Foxy,

'Paid Maternity Leave will happen. And, years from now we'll all wonder what all the fuss was all about.'

No Doubt. Just like Centrepoint tower and the monorail. Doesn't mean they are good ideas, people just have a short attention span, and know once a handout is there it's politically impossible to take it away.

That's why it's so important to clamp down now, as it's the thin edge of the wedge. Minimum wage at 14 weeks now, full wage for 1 year eventually, and you will have a single mother on $40k a year with 3 kids paying for a new mother's 1 year full pay maternity leave at $150k.

So while single mum struggles, new mom sits on a beach on her post baby holiday angrily waiting for her personal trainer to turn up because she has to pick her kids up from the kids club by 6pm. All at the tax payers expense.

I predict eventually there will even be 3 - 5 days paid menstrual leave a month for all women. The last piece of the puzzle is the penis tax on men, but that's another story.

Pericles
Do you think all other countries, which signed the convention for the paid maternity leave ( except USA and Australia) are idiots or irresponsible?
Do you think that the Trade Unions worldwide which promote the paid maternity leave are irresponsible and extremist?
Do you think employers associations worldwide do not know or care for their own interests because they support the paid maternity leave?
Instead to speak for the maternity leave you try to prove that Rudd was not enough clear before the elections.
Do you agree with maternity leave Yes or No? I think you could become a successful politician!
I know that even the most conservative governments and parties support the paid maternity leave, worldwide.
It is your right to be against the paid maternity leave.

Foxy Thank you for all.
It is seemed there are many conservatives in this forum. No problemo!
They gives us the excuse to cover our weakness! This time, I believe Australian women will take the paid maternity leave.

Usual Suspect
always there are small minorities who try to stop the history, to stop the improvement from their civilization.
You know very well that in the rest of the world people take paid maternity leave, you know very well that civilized counties as European Countries, pay many times more than the minimum, as maternity, paternity or parental leave.

Stuart!
It pasted about one century, from the first convention for paid maternity leave and we did not sign it. Now Rudd try to solve this problem and I think he will do it. Instead you to support for the solution of this very basic problem you .. write for other stories?
Do you agree with paid maternity leave or not?

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Now you are just being silly, ASymeonakis.

>>Do you think all other countries, which signed the convention for the paid maternity leave ( except USA and Australia) are idiots or irresponsible?<<

Did I mention idiocy or irresponsibility in any of my posts here? I don't think so, so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Governments will do what governments will do. All I am pointing out here is that our government is choosing to do it in an extremely underhand manner, without putting the options to the people in the form of an election promise.

You know as well as I do that pre-election promises on fiscal matters are carefully costed before they are presented to the electorate. There is always a bun-fight about them, but at least they are out in the open. This is taxation by stealth.

>>Do you think that the Trade Unions worldwide which promote the paid maternity leave are irresponsible and extremist?<<

No, I think they are desperately grabbing any and every opportunity to try and present themselves as relevant. This is a classic example of exactly that tendency.

>>Do you think employers associations worldwide do not know or care for their own interests because they support the paid maternity leave?<<

I know for a fact that "employers associations" that have any semblance of understanding of small business - which is still getting on for 50% of our economy, by the way - reject it as discriminatory (in favour of big business) and unworkable.

>>Do you agree with maternity leave Yes or No?<<

As a voluntary staff benefit, yes. As a piece of legislation, no.

The root of the problem is the government's total and utter lack of understanding of how businesses actually work. How you need to make a profit in order to employ people. How time-consuming and intrusive are all the niggling little jobsworths who keep teling you that you have to do this, and you have to do that.

If governments are so good at running businesses, why do they keep selling them off to the private sector?

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick addressing the Productivity Commission's inquiry into paid maternity, paternity and parental leave in Sydney ,advocated for the immediate implementation of a federally funded 14-week maternity leave scheme, to be paid at the rate of the federal minimum wage.
I the 2nd stage, begin in two years, would give mothers and fathers a share in an additional 34 weeks' paid maternity leave.
Non-working mothers would not get paid maternity leave but would still receive the $5000 baby bonus and other family benefits, Ms Broderick said.
"Stage two would bring Australia into line with comparable countries and meet important health-and-wellbeing and gender-equality objectives, such as facilitating the shared care of children by men and women," Ms Broderick said.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23733463-5001021,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23733063-2702,00.html

Bravo commissioner! Australia needs you!

Pericles
I do not think you or any one else expect that Rudd or any other government would ask the small business to pay maternity, paternity or parental leave.
The best and easiest way is if the government pay mothers and fathers and 99.999% the government will pay for them. Do not worry for nothing.
I can not understand your reaction about the maternity leave. Generally your ideas are progressive( about Iraq, God, Democracy etc)and your name is even... better.
Let's take it before something change and we would have to wait for an other century!
Is not it enough that all other countries pay it, including Greece?
I have not any kind of personal or family benefit from it but I know it is good for mothers, children, families.
About the very clear or specific promises of politicians.
What do you ask me Percles?

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

We will get paid maternity leave and be a better country for it.
It will be won partly by unions one in five of us.
Many will again try to say this is wrong, that unions get involved in politics.
But be unconcerned at groups of far less numbers doing just that.
Foxy rightly points out some reasons I am a proud unionist.
And my Friend AS is concerned that I do not adopt every one of his claims.
I can not, simple as it sounds the time in my view of extremism is gone.
A claim for both baby bonus and leave?[ from what?] for non working mothers is extreme.
Over and again I will highlight there is a difference in unions, I see no future for the movement if it fights for issues that are never going to find near majority support.
Keep up the fight however AS unions are always going to be heard and needed.

Without wishing to pry, ASymeonakis, have you ever run a business yourself? Every indication so far is that you haven't, because you insist on stressing the big picture, "let's grab every benefit we can get" aspects of this issue, and ignore the ramifications for people who are employers, rather than employees.

As I said in a previous post, this kind of "benefit" is encouraged by big business because it gives them yet another advantage over the small operators.

So don't come whining later that you are being screwed by the monopolists when they finally close down all of their competitors and can dictate what you pay.

Do you recall what happened when Qantas was the only airline left standing? I do. I was running a small company that had to occasionally do business in Melbourne, and the cheapest return fare from Sydney suddenly went up to $650. Along came Virgin and - amazingly - the fares came down. They are now consistently below $200. That's what small business does for you. It applies at least a modicum of pressure to keep the bastards honest.

My only defence against this kind of discriminatory legislation, is to be discriminatory myself. I will - as I am sure many others in my position will - think very carefully indeed before hiring anyone who might be in a position to become a parent in the near future.

The argument that it will assist with staff retention, and that "it costs $10,000 to hire" doesn't help, when the employee concerned represents, say 10% of your workforce. It still costs to replace them, and creates another headache down the track when they come back.

I'm not whinging, just pointing out stuff that you might not have considered. I wouldn't ever go back into the corporate world, I get a great deal of satisfaction - despite the humongous overdraft - from running my small company.

I just wish that governments would just occasionally do something that made life a little easier for us, instead of harder and harder each year.

"Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick "

if true to her title,should have submitted no one get paid maternity or paternity leave, that is "indiscriminate equality" across the sexes.

if the comment "advocated for the immediate implementation of a federally funded 14-week maternity leave scheme, to be paid at the rate of the federal minimum wage."

is correct,

the "Sex Discrimination" Commissioner is clearly acting "Discriminately"

Doubtless, any "sexually based" difference in mandatory leave entitlements will, ultimately, make the employment options available for all females, proportionally more difficult.

Col,

' any "sexually based" difference in mandatory leave entitlements will, ultimately, make the employment options available for all females, proportionally more difficult.'

Exactly. BTW I'm sure you already realise for all intents and purposes the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's office sees sex discrimination SOLELY as discrimination against women.

ASymeonakis,

Your argument seems to revolve around 'the rest of the world does it, so that means Australia should'. This is a very unconvincing argument. It seems you see Australia inferior to the rest of the world. Australia was the first to give women the vote. Now because the rest of the world at that time didn't allow women to vote, would you have then argued Australia should not allow women to vote to keep Australia in line with the rest of the world?

'I the 2nd stage, begin in two years, would give mothers and fathers a share in an additional 34 weeks' paid maternity leave.'

Haha. The only thing in life surer than death and taxes is that STAGE TWO NEVER HAPPENS.

Now you never addressed my concern.
You say we should 'pay many times more than the minimum'.

Therefore, do you think it's fair and right for a woman earning $150000 (possibly with a partner earning the same), to get paid for 6 months to a year to maintain a lifestyle of luxury after having a child, while another woman earning $30000 with two children to bring up on her own, pays more tax to pay for this indulgence?

Also, do you think it's a good idea for a family where the woman earns $90000, and the man earns $40000, to only allow the woman to stay home at full pay, costing the community a $90000 salary, when the man could stay at home as it is more financially viable?

Maternity leave would advantage me greatly, and so did the baby bonus, but I don't believe in either. It is my responsibility to save and plan to have children. Welfare should be for the genuinely poor, people like my wife and I shouldn't be getting a government handout.

US “Exactly. BTW I'm sure you already realise for all intents and purposes the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's office sees sex discrimination SOLELY as discrimination against women.”

I do US.

I consider the appointment of the commissioner an immoral appointment for the following reasons

1 the role promotes discrimination
2 the role takes its mandate from the notion of affirmative action, a theory which is clearly flawed.
3 it costs money for which there is no value-adding return to the tax payer.

The last reason is the most important. It is immoral for government to appoint bureaucrats to positions of pointlessness. Such appointments deprive tax payers of their discretionary income, without giving anything back.

In short, it is government waste by spending taxes on something which is worse than pointless.

Pericles
1 My best wishes for success to your small company!
Really I do not expect small business to pay any cent for the paid maternity leave.
2. I was sole parent with three children and I have not the time and financial ability to create my own business but now my children are enough old and now I try to establish my own business. You do not know how many hours 7 days per week I am working to establish my own business, real slave!
3. Personally I am ready to pay extra tax for the maternity leave although I do not expect from it any personal or family benefit. My daughter left Australia and probably non from my family would benefit from it but paid maternity leave IS VERY BASIC, VERY ESSENTIAL AND I FULLY SUPPORT IT.
What do you mean Pericles? Do not you know that women one day sooner or later will become pregnant mothers? Do not you know that the existing law protect them? Do not you know that the current law guarantee the maternity leave? The only thing which will change is that a small part from the maternity leave will be paid by the government (I think from government). I DO NOT EXPECT ANYONE TO TOUCH THE SMALL BUSYNESS!
Pericles Australia must line with the rest of the world! I understand your worries but you worry very much for no reason!
Regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Usual Suspect

"Australia was the first to give women the vote" Now because this statement is not actually true it somewhat invalidates the continuation of your argument based upon that premise. Just in case you want to use this argument again in another thread it might be a good idea to check first?

Usual Suspect,
"Australia was the first to give women the vote" In this I could tell the women from other countries" Do you see Australian women won the right to vote, You must fight for this right it is good for you!" The same thing I on the internet to Muslim women" do you see the western women, their rights? Time to woke up!"
Usual Suspect
You know the story, I try to support the weakest side, I try to push a little bit mothers, children human rights. These rights are universal, for every mother, child, human. Women did not come from an other planet, they are our mothers, wifes, daughters, granddaughters etc.
The maternity leave is a right, as the sick leave, not a bonus, not welfare.
About the " only allow the woman to stay home at full pay" There are three types from paid leaves, maternity paid leave only for pregnant woman of cause the birth, this is very limited for health reasons and for the child , there is the paternity leave, for fathers when the mother is on maternity leave, in Australia we do not start to discuss on it but sooner or later we will have it too. In some European Countries the paid paternity leave is many weeks.MOTHER OR FATHER WOULD TAKE THE PARENTAL LEAVE IF THE CHILD-CHILDREN NEED THEM, SICK, ETC.IN THIS PAID LEAVE, MOTHER AND FATHER HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, NO ONE MINUTES MORE FOR THE MOTHER, EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE CHILD. The paid paternal leave is the longest one, in some countries until the child to become 8 years old. 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.
In really the parental leave encourage the fathers to stay home and care their children!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Col Rouge
"consider the appointment of the commissioner an immoral appointment"
Col Rouge we have Sex Discrimination Commissioner for many years and the current federal sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick , was appointed by the Howard Government, not from Rudd.
Elizabeth Broderick is a lawyer, mentor and innovative leader, 2001/02 Telstra NSW Business Woman of the Year and Australian Corporate Business Woman of the Year.
Elizabeth has been included in Business Review Weekly’s list of 20 rising female stars in Australian business, developed mentoring programs for teenage girls at State High Schools in Sydney and later a mentoring program for female university students.
Elizabeth has a particular interest in issues related to the impact of the internet, women in business, work and life balance, gender equality and corporate social responsibility. She is a regular speaker at international and domestic conferences. (copy from the website of HREOC).
Elizabeth Broderick has very, very high standards and has nothing to do with political parties or cheap politics.
Col Rouge, I think it is time for you to update your ideas. I wrote in an other post, the paid maternity leave is very basic and it is supported from all parties worldwide, including the conservative one.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Why should the workers pay so you can have Children it is your choice I had children my wifes never worked and they had a good life,

Why pay more when Australia can not look after the workers they have already, When Australia thinks 40 plus is too old to work any more.

what Bulldust Australia is going down the drain because all the people with know how go overseas, and overseas prospers and we importevery thing.

I just read an Article saying Australia's Unemployment fell to it's lowest since 1974 with 8,200 less people on the Dole, this may well me true, because they are all over here in China with a life and where age means you know how.

As a result of being unemployed and unable to obtain unemployment benefits for my wife of 5 years and my 12 year old step daughter.

I was forced to live on just a single man rate this was the beginning of the end and I am now divorced.

In the end I gave up after sending my resume' to over one thousand companies with two degrees one in Business Management and Sales and Marketing along with 25 years practical know how.

...even Centre link came straight out and told me face to face you have almost no chance of scoring a job, that was when I was 53 now I am 55

Then a thought came to me the other day why is we can make, sell and achieve a good profit on the products like am MP4 player or a DVR and yet in Australia it is sold up to 1000 times more than we sold it to them for.

It is criminal when you know how much this company I work for sells the product for, and how much you pay

Why?

Kevin Rudd you need to have a look if you wish to reduce Inflation

Lets fix up what we have first then worry about fringe benfits to young people wanting kids

Mike

mike@chinablueangel.com

We need a strong and responsible opposition, all democracies need strong opposition, but persons like you sent the people direct to ALP!
THANK YOU!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 9:04:24 PM

Well the best way for me to respond to this is 'watch this space'!

When people start to loose thier homes, jobs and relationships we will soon see just how popular they really are.

As for the topic, have you observed many seniors lately, or more so how they struggle to survive from week to week.

Now many of these folk have faught in a war, or at least supported a loved one who has, or lived through the terror of a war only to be left on the scrap heap because every swinging dick has thier hand in the cookie jar and there are not enough cookies to go around.

Remember, it is these seniors, or many of them that have provided the platform of our great nation that we all enjoy so much today.

Stop being greedy and expecting society to pay for your life choices!

As for paid maternity leave, as an employer you observe risks to you business every day.

The end reslut of this puch, if succesful, will be that fewer women will be employed in full time positions as a reslut. It's no rocket science, just risk management.

I hope you're all ready for what you're about to create!

ASymeonakis “Col Rouge we have Sex Discrimination Commissioner for many years”

That makes no difference. The position, in my opinion, has always been divisive and discriminatory.

“Col Rouge, I think it is time for you to update your ideas.”

Nothing wrong with my “ideas”, especially when they are in defense of the individual against the dead hand of bureaucratic meddlers and levelers associated most commonly with socialist swill politics.

“ I wrote in an other post, the paid maternity leave is very basic and it is supported from all parties worldwide, including the conservative one.”

So what, in the past the blanket use of DDT, lead in petrol and the work of William McBride were supported world wide. Today such things are again condemned.

Imposing off-wage packet employment overheads to employee contracts will adversely affect and muddy the waters of contract negotiations and reduce the potential employment opportunities of females versus males. That is a fact because – government cannot legislate for employer attitudes and the employers assessment of comparative cost (between genders)..

As rehctub says “Stop being greedy and expecting society to pay for your life choices!”

Exactly - “maternity leave” is just another example of “socialist safety meddling” which distance the individual from responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and as such, is morally corrupt

Welcome to the real world ASymeonakis.

>>now I try to establish my own business. You do not know how many hours 7 days per week I am working to establish my own business, real slave!<<

Yep, that's what it takes.

And if you ever get around to employing people, and taking responsibility for providing a challenging, rewarding and legally-conformant workplace, I will become more interested to hear your views on the levels of government intervention in business.

>>Personally I am ready to pay extra tax for the maternity leave although I do not expect from it any personal or family benefit.<<

That is very generous of you, but irrelevant to the discussion. I give money to the Salvos, but that is a personal decision. If the government chose to dictate which charity I should choose, I would object, even if their charity of choice were the Salvos.

>>Really I do not expect small business to pay any cent for the paid maternity leave.<<

OK, since you are new to business, it is important for you to understand how it works. A really good exercise would be to unpack the statement above, and write down on a piece of paper exactly how you think small business will not "pay any cent".

To start you off, I would just like to point out that if our tax dollars are going to be allocated in this fashion, taxes will increase.

There are three forms of taxation that are relevant here; company tax, personal income tax and GST

Company taxation rates affect my business directly. Personal taxation rates affect it indirectly, by forcing up wage inflation. GST affects both directly and indirectly, by making goods and services less affordable, and adding to wage inflation.

But please, if you can justify your statement, I'm all ears. You may have found the magic bullet, after all.

But really, it's just idealism, ASymeonakis, to think it will cost nothing.

Idealism gives you a warm feeling for a while. But after a while it becomes cold and wet, and just a little smelly.

Have a great day.

Pericles "Idealism gives you a warm feeling for a while. But after a while it becomes cold and wet, and just a little smelly."

alternatively put

Idealism, is to the sentimental, left wing of politics what a wet dream is to an adolescent -

being something which is unsuited as a topic for general discussion.

There are various ways to find the money for paid maternity leave without tax increases. Usually labor, socialist, social democratic governments reduce the military expenses, bring back soldiers from Iraq, reduce the quantity of new weapons, as they will be useless in 5-10 years while improving the relations with countries around Australia.etc. An other way is improving the productivity in public sector and limiting its costs or wasting less money where it is not necessary, for example private schools, etc.
Do not worry the PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION WILL FIND MANY WAYS FOR MATERNITY, PATERNITY AND PARENTAL LEAVE.
It is good if the busyness understand their social role and undertake their social responsibilities. A big part of busynesses understand their role and support the paid maternity leave etc. I remind you the common article from Elizabeth Broderick federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sharan Burrow president of the ACTU and Heather Ridout chief executive of the Australian Industry Group(represents more than 10.000 employers)"{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
Ms Heather Ridout chief executive of the Australian Industry Group could not write this article if did not know that the mass majority of employers support the paid maternity leave.
I can not expect all Australians to support it BUT I AM SURE MORE THAN 75% AUSTRALIANS SUPPORT IT.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

This argument of yours is becoming increasingly bizarre, ASymeonakis.

>>There are various ways to find the money for paid maternity leave without tax increases. Usually labor, socialist, social democratic governments reduce the military expenses, bring back soldiers from Iraq, reduce the quantity of new weapons, as they will be useless in 5-10 years while improving the relations with countries around Australia.etc. An other way is improving the productivity in public sector and limiting its costs or wasting less money where it is not necessary, for example private schools, etc.<<

Except that they don't. Take a look at Tony Blair's track record in the UK over the past ten years, and see how his labor, socialist, social democrat cut back in these areas.

But in any case, I have to tell you that any Australian political party that went into an election campaign with these promises would not get elected.

Which brings me back to democracy.

And please tell me, when did any government, anywhere, successfully "improve the productivity in public sector?"

The whole point about the public sector is that it is inefficient and wasteful. If it were not, it wouldn't need to employ those tens of thousands of jobsworths who inhabit its many handsome facilities, earning their FBT-free perks and benefits and sucking on the increasingly ragged teat of those businesses that actually create value in the economy of Australia.

But that's an entirely different topic, isn't it.

Dear Pericles,

I'd like to respond to your last post and your criticism of the Government. I strongly disagree with you.

Australia has a particularly strong record of achievement in the life sciences. I don't want to go into too much detail here and sidetrack Antonio's thread but you need to be reminded that the
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) has become one of the world's largest and most diverse scientific research institutions. Their work covers a broad range of areas of economic and social importance.

Australia's tradition of inventiveness affects the everyday lives of millions of people in many countries. Techniqies and processes as commonplace as industrial refrigeration, the ready-mix system of transporting concrete and the balloon-in-a-box cask for wine were devised in Australia.

Australia prints its money on polymer, not paper, and other countries are beginning to use this technology. When people around the world use the telephone or the Internet, they rely on basic research associated with scientists who work in Australia. Australians adopted the Internet early, and many Australian websites feature in international "hot lists," particularly those associated with academic research.

Some Australian inventions are not for everyday use: gene shears for genetic engineering' the Synroc system for storing radioactive waste; the Interscan microwave aircraft landing system; smart proton probes for research into materials and living cells; and nano-machines for bio-sensing.

Some inventive Australians have been:
1) David Warren invented the black-box flight recorder.
2) Earl Owen pioneered microsurgery,
3) Graeme Clark developed the bionic ear.
4) Sir Howard Florey shared a Nobel Prize in 1945 as co-discoverer of the antibiotic penicillin.
5) James Harrison devised the sulphuric ether refrigerating system.
6) Ralph Sarich engineered the orbital engine.
7) The late Fred Hollows developed cheap corneal replacements to cure types of blindness common in developing countries.

Then we have our list of Nobel laureates in science. I won't list them all but I will mention Barry Marshall and Robin Warren who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine for their work in identifying the role played in a bacterium in gastritis and peptic ulcers.

CONT'D

I meant to add that without Government funding and support - none of these achievements would have been possible.

Foxy
I started this thread not because I have had a whole picture, in details for the paid maternity, paternity, parental leave but because I agree with its basic philosophy, its goals.
I do not know and I could not know how exactly the government will cover the cost of this scheme. I know that we can, I know that there are various ways to cover the cost, personally I am ready to pay more tax for it because I think this will be useful for Australia.
"I don't want to go into too much detail here and sidetrack Antonio's thread"
Foxy
For me the important is not if the thread is mine or not but how I, We, can promote with the best way the paid maternity leave, the goals of the thread.
PLEASE FROM NOW AND ON IGNORE TOTALLY IF THE THREAD IS MINE AND IF YOU AGREE WITH THE GOALS OF THE THREAD, DO EVERYTHING YOU THING RIGHT TO PROMOTE THE GOALS OF THE THREAD.
Thank you
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Foxy, I love you dearly as a very compassionate and caring person, but you really should let your heart listen to your head sometimes.

>>without Government funding and support - none of these achievements would have been possible<<

I thought I would work backwards on your list, mainly because the last two were the only ones I had heard of.

>>The late Fred Hollows developed cheap corneal replacements to cure types of blindness common in developing countries<<

As I understand it, Fred had to squeeze hard to get a red cent out of the Government. In fact, the Aboriginal Medical Service was established without Government money. He refused to accepts the Order of Australia in 1985 as a protest against what he called "blatant government disinterest in eye care for Aboriginal people".

>>Ralph Sarich engineered the orbital engine<<

Ralph Sarich invented the orbital engine, won an inventor's competition in 1972, and then set about raising funds to develop it. According to the records, he floated the Orbital Engine Company on the stock exchange, and persuaded BHP to fork out $50m. The Federal Government invested - invested - $15m, and the West Australian Government $3m, all in the company. As shareholders. When he asked for another $100m, he was turned down.

>>James Harrison devised the sulphuric ether refrigerating system<<

For a brewery. He was a Scottish engineer. Not a brass razoo from the government.

>>Sir Howard Florey shared a Nobel Prize in 1945 as co-discoverer of the antibiotic penicillin<<

Errrr... I think you will find that his work on this was conducted at Oxford University. In England. In his own words:

"I got a Rhodes scholarship actually before the end of the medical course, and went straight off to Oxford. I think even in those days I thought it was highly improbable that I'd ever come back to Australia. And this may sound a very odd thing to say, but I think I left here thinking that there were no opportunities in the sort of things I was beginning to get interested in, physiology for example."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s12220.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s12820.htm

ASymeonakis “I can not expect all Australians to support it BUT I AM SURE MORE THAN 75% AUSTRALIANS SUPPORT IT.”

Ah yes, well if I were to go and say “I have a great idea which will pay everyone a lot of money and cost them nothing”, which is the thrust of your proposal, I would get 90% of people to support it, simply because, when I choose to be I am extremely persuasive.

However, that does not mean what I say is true
It does not mean it is moral or right

What I have observed is, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and remembering one of the lessons of history involving a Trojan horse, one should certainly “beware Greeks bearing gifts”

Re “I do not know and I could not know how exactly the government will cover the cost of this scheme.”

Then maybe you should do some research before shouting your mouth off.

I fcan tell you how, governments cover the costs of everything they do, by taxing the wealth generating taxpayers or retaining excess taxes (as in a surplus budget) or by retaining the capital gain from assets bought with historically levied taxes.

That is how.
There is no other way.

Personally, if a maternity scheme was a plank in some greater plan to guarantee high levels of employment indefinitely into the future, it might, just might have some merit.

But reality will determine

it will hinder future employment, especially for females.
It will contribute to wage inflation
It will reduce Australian competitiveness
It will favour one segment of the workforce (females) to the detriment of others (males)

Therefore, it has no merit and despite all your sentimental whining, remains a stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

Foxy “balloon-in-a-box cask for wine were devised in Australia.”

It was devised by a Mediterranean immigrant family who based it on the goat-skin wine containers used in southern Europe (dunno the proper name for these). They sold the idea to ACI, a privately owned company. (I worked for ACI, Packaging Division, back in the 1980s).

Foxy "I meant to add that without Government funding and support - none of these achievements would have been possible."

Following Pericles and my last posts suggests your "claim" to the virtues of government funding is exaggerated.

Whilst government can point taxpayer resources into particular areas, venture capital companies abound and can throw equal resources at them but do so with less bureaucracy and usually a better balance to their portfolio of risk with greater precision and insight to the "winners", than a bunch of bureacrats playing monopoly with tax payers funds.

Nothing of a commercial nature, which government does cannot be done by private enterprise, except doing whatever it is as badly as government -

because private enterprise is accountable but government cannot go broke, it just goes and milks more out of the tax payer.

Tony
I dont mind if you want kids. I dont even mind if your wife does. I dont mind if your girlfriend and yourself do.
Just so long as you and your wofe pay your own way and that includes being reasonsible for your 'own'
Thats the problem with you people you dont seem to understand the word YOUR reasonsibilty.
What on earth do you think I would want to pay for yours kids for and your wife to stay home.
Answer is somply
Dont have kids unless 'you' can afford to .

Even if this country could afford it give us one good reason why I should pay for your wife or any others to have kids?

Try the pill

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
1. From now and on I do not permit you to change my name from Antonios to Tony. You could use ASymeonakis, Antonios or Symeonakis but do not change my name. If you continue to change my name the VERY-VERY SOON I will bring the issue to race discrimination commission. I MEAN IT.
2. As I wrote twice in this thread I do not have any personal or family benefit from the paid maternity leave, I am 57 years old, my daughter is working overseas and I do not know if she return mack or not. I SUPPORT MATERNITY LEAVE BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR AUSTRALIAN MOTHERS, AUSTRALIAN CHILDREN, BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR AUSTRALIA. I did not ask you to pay for my kits or my wife, I do not have.
3. You care for the animals but not for Australian pregnant, for Australian children. SOON, VERY SOON WE WILL HAVE THE MATERNITY, PATERNITY, PARENTAL LEAVE. YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE BELONG TO A VERY SMALL MINORITY AND YOU CAN NOT STOP THE PROGRESS FROM AUSTRALIA.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis"I SUPPORT MATERNITY LEAVE BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR AUSTRALIAN MOTHERS, AUSTRALIAN CHILDREN, BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR AUSTRALIA."

not until you can challenge, with reason, my observations regarding

"But reality will determine

it will hinder future employment, especially for females.
It will contribute to wage inflation
It will reduce Australian competitiveness
It will favour one segment of the workforce (females) to the detriment of others (males)

Therefore, it has no merit and despite all your sentimental whining, remains a stupid, stupid, stupid idea."

All it does is shuffle the limited resources available to employers around, producing a slightly different dissection of the income pie between competing participants. It adds nothing to the value of those limited resources and in fact takes away because of the need to provide for possible eventualities beyond the immediate payment period.

I await your response.

This is the second thread where you have run off at the mouth with gingoistic rhetoric and then failed to follow up with any attempt at reasoned debate.

you are becoming a bore and

you are deluded if you think such cheap, sentimentality deserves to find success among real thinking people.

I suggest you do real research into topics before you bother to raise them.

As for (to PALE&IF)

"3. You care for the animals but not for Australian pregnant, for Australian children. SOON, VERY SOON WE WILL HAVE THE MATERNITY, PATERNITY, PARENTAL LEAVE. YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE BELONG TO A VERY SMALL MINORITY AND YOU CAN NOT STOP THE PROGRESS FROM AUSTRALIA."

what a load of paternalistic and patronising twaddle.

It induces in me a serious desire to participate in projectile vomiting.

Col Rouge
1. If you see the statistics in many countries, in many universities the majority of students are women. If you see women's employment you will find that most of them work part time or with low wages or try to find work. Why women have not success in their workplace? Because they are women, because they become pregnant, have birth, because they care their kits.
Why the women have to destroy their future, have to care their kits alone? Where is the father, where is the government, where is the employer?
Do only the mothers benefit from the kits, not the fathers, not the country, not the employers? IF EVERY ONE IS BENEFIT FROM THE KITS THEN WHY WE PUT THE CROSS ONLY ON WOMEN'S SHOULDERS?
Time to change the roles of the game. all we benefit from the children all we will undertake responsibilities for them.
Col Rouge, IT IS TIME WOMEN TO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE CHILDREN WITH THE FATHERS, THE GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYERS.
2. it will hinder future employment, especially for females. NO, Women all ready take maternity leave but is unpaid (last years they take a bonus), with the new law (if we line up with Europe etc,)With the new system are the men who who would take paid leave to care the child than only the women, if the employers have a problem it would be more with the men than with the women.
3. The productivity will be increased mainly women would not interrupt their carrier for their child and employers would give more opportunities to women as they will know that women will share the child care with fathers and they will be in their work as the men.
4. It will contribute to wage inflation, not really because already last years Howard government gave the bonus for a child birth.
5. It will favour one segment of the workforce (females) to the detriment of others (males). You have right it will improve women position in workplaces and will transfer to fathers responsibilities for their children.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles
About Tony Blair's track record in the UK. You have right but what did Blair does not mean Rudd will do too.
Two years before in Kirghistan airport I was waiting for long time because the officer locked his office and slept! When first time I applied for Australian passport I was waiting for some weeks, last time I had it in 8 days. The productivity in public sector is not same worldwide or from place to place or from time to time in a country. Now the productivity in Australian public sector is high but I am sure it could improved.
The productivity in private sector is higher from the public sector.
1. For some years I was Union officer (not in Australia)and I tried to find the tricks and lies from employers, even the multinational companies was crying that did not had profit at all! but their millions become billions! In Australia I was for some time union representative or union councilor, printing division.
Pericles while the public sector respect the law in high degree in private sector there is a huge problem. For example a meal with 5 hours for health reasons, in private sector ignored when they are busy. health environment, ventilation, chemicals etc. who cares about them. wight limits who cares about them. I MEAN PERICLES, IN PRIVATE SECTOR THE PRODUCTIVITY IS HIGHER BUT AGAINST THE HEALTH AND BASIC RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES. Some times employers have really financial problems, some times they promised again and again. This kind of problems do not exist so often in the public sector but all these cost enough and reduce the productivity.
2. Do you know who work harder in a small or medium size company? The employer! They are the real slaves. I do not think any employee, even the most conscious will try so hard as the employer from a small company. Always the productivity in private sector will be higher from the public sector but there are many other goals, in a production plan and not only the productivity.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Pericles,

You actually made me blush.

Thank You for your kind words.

The point that I was trying to make was that applied research has a focus on transforming basic scientific principles into discoveries that have economic significance. And this type of research occurs in both the public and private sectors - with some outstanding results
as given in my earlier post.

The Government aimed to build stronger links between researchers and the business community. An example is the 'Cooperative Research Centre ' (CRC) program, which involves the collaboration of industry, universities, and government agencies in long-term research projects.
The Australian Government has committed more than A$2 billion to the program since 1990 - and the CSIRO more than A$1 billion.

The CRCs have a strong focus on commercial and other applications. In addition to the links formed through CRCs, many universities have business arms to handle contract research and to seek out companies interested in commercialising research.

As I stated in my earlier post CSIRO's work covers a broad range of areas of economic or social importance, including agriculture, minerals and energy, communications, construction, health and the environment.

CSIRO's emphasis is on bringing together people from different scientific fields to find solutions to major national problems.

Worldwide CSIRO is involved in over 750 current or recently completed
activities, working with leading scientific organisations and firms in the United States, Japan and Europe.

Among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
countries, Australia ranks sixth for public sector expenditure on R&D
(Research and Development) as a percentage of GDP. In 2004-5 the Australian Government spent more than A$5.5 billion on major science and innovation programs. Universities and Federal Research Agencies received most of this funding. The 2004-5 Federal Budget allocated an estimated A$2.3 billion to support research in universities alone.

I trust that I've made my point...

ASymeonakis”Because they are women, because they become pregnant, have birth, because they care their kits.”

Maybe because they get pregnant, have births care for their “kits” they do not “commit” to their jobs in the same way men do.

“Why the women have to destroy their future, have to care their kits alone? Where is the father, where is the government, where is the employer?”

Womens futures- with the man in their life, it is called marriage

Fathers are at work, doing it for their families

Government are doing what governments do best, pissing your and my taxes out the window

Employers are looking after the legitimate needs of all their employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers and that bleeding government who need to know too much about nothing, not just the women.

“CROSS ONLY ON WOMEN'S SHOULDERS?”

Crap

“(if we line up with Europe etc,)”

Europe have different problems and priorities than Australia.

“Time to change the roles of the game.”

That is for individuals to decide for themselves, not for you to dictate.

“productivity will be increased” no it will not

“It will contribute to wage inflation, not really because already last years Howard government gave the bonus for a child birth.”

And I did not support that inflationary rubbish either.

“will transfer to fathers responsibilities for their children.”

Father already have responsibility for their children, this one had, without special leave and my daughters are fine. They don’t look for handouts from government either

As for the rest, you are a sentimental fool, maybe you think pandering to women might get you a girl friend. Trust me it won’t, it will more likely get you a punch on the nose from other men.

Men have rights and abilities. Men managed businesses for generations before women.

I have no problem with women participating in business to the extent of their individual ability but I do have problems with differential employment benefits because they are divisive, discriminatory and do not improve the lot of either employees or employers.

Hi all

While I do not agree with ASymeonakis' views on paid maternity leave, I think the post by PALE is extraordinarily vitriolic and discriminatory.

ASymeonakis. please accept my apologies at least for that. We do not all treat people that way.

Cheers
Nicky

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,
The names indicate the roots, culture, religious of a person, they are their visible DNA of a migrant full of emotional values.
When we change the name from the migrants we humiliate them, we make them to fill weak, unprotected, losers, because we ignore, violate, change their name, something very personal and very valuable for them.
Changing migrant's names is very often, some times the changes are small some times big and very painful. Imagine to change a Cristian name to a Muslim or Hindu name, imagine to change Muslim migrant's his name to a Cristian name. This could be very painful. Why?
Many countries, many people try to change migrant's name because they want to stop migrant's connection with their past, because they want to wipe , destroy migrant's offer to their country.
If we use the real names of every person, Antonios, Gusepe, Aisa, Mohamet, Muller, Minguel, Carvalio etc, slowly, slowly we will understand and accept them, we understand and accept that in this country leave and work and offer people from various countries with different cultures, languages etc.
THIS WILL BRING AUSTRALIANS CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, THIS WILL IMPROVE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRALIANS FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
My goal is not to bring you in difficult position or to hurt you, but to grab the opportunity from the change you made in my name and promote something more important and useful for Australia.
MY PERMANENT GOAL IS TO WIPE THE BLOCKS WHICH SEPARATE US AND PROMOTE THE UNDERSTANDING AND COOPERATION AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN AUSTRALIANS BUT THIS COULD HAPPENED ONLY IF WE RESPECT THE PERSONALITY AND SENSITIVITIES FROM EACH PERSON.
Regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Nicky
People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming is not so hard as she seem. The truth is that I grabbed the opportunity from what she did to promote, to discuss an issue "change migrant's names" which I thing is important and useful to understand it.
My fillings to People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming are not bad, I understand her and I hope she could understand me too.
Nicky this things happen do not worry, it is OK. THANK YOU! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
For me is harder that you disagree with maternity leave than because NPeople Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming is a little bit hard with me.
Nicky REALLY I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL IMPROVE WOMEN'S POSITION IN OUR SOCIETY AND MAKE OUR COUNTRY BETTER, HAPPIER, FAIRER.
Nicky THANK YOU! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Col Rouge
"Fathers are at work, doing it for their families" AHHAH!
If I did not know you I could think that you are a Muslim conservative.
Men for work, women for children and kitchen! You speak like my grandfather! He was very good person, he loved me and I have loved him but I had BIG, BIG problems when I discussed with him.
Very often he said me " I asked you for the goats and you answered to me for the horses!" You are real conservative.
Col Rouge, I seem hard but I am not, you are not the only one with these ideas, I DISAGREE WITH YOU and my worries is how to hide your text because if the women read it they would attacked you and THEY WILL HAVE RIGHT!
regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis "Fathers are at work, doing it for their families" AHHAH!
If I did not know you I could think that you are a Muslim conservative."

I don't know what planet you live on but the one I am on, most fathers go to work for their families and do what is needed to ensure their children and wives are as well cared for as they can. Sometimes mothers work too but to your comment:

"If I did not know you I could think that you are a Muslim conservative."

I would suggest you show the real research statistics which prove your point, that the vast majority of fathers and husbands do different to what I have described.

I suggest supporting ones family by working for a living is the most common practice among the vast majority of male "Christians", "Atheists", "Agnostics", "Buddhists", "Hindus" and "druids" living in Australia, as well as "Muslims".

If you want to make smart arsed and humourless, snide comments about Muslims or the nature of or the accuracy of my views, I suggest you resist. I am quite able of responding with similar asides and will not hesitate to do so.

Now I demand you Justify your challenge to my view.

As to "I DISAGREE WITH YOU and my worries is how to hide your text because if the women read it they would attacked you and THEY WILL HAVE RIGHT!"

Your view to a females response to me is likewise, out with the pixies. Most women I know prefer this male with the strength to stand by his views, rather than behave like some sycophantic woosie who is just trying to ingratiate himself (btw Your brown nose is showing and we might have to call you "sniffer").

I will hide my views from no one and do not need your censorship.

"You are real conservative"

My Choice.

Conservativism is the practice of not running after rainbows. It has served me well and I will continue to tread cautiously, rather than going Ra-Ra for every ding-bat moron proposal that you or anyone else promotes.

Col Rouge
The question is not what is the role of fathers and mothers today BUT IF THIS ROLE IS FAIR ENOUGH FOR MEN AND WOMEN.
I SAY THAT WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL NOW IS AGAINST THE WOMEN, IT MAKES THEM TO DEPEND ON THEIR HUSBANDS, IT MAKES THEM WEAK, VOICELESS. I want the women independent financially and equal with the men. I want them to do what they want to do, because they choice it, because they like it, because they agree with it.
If they are not financially independent they have not other choice than to agree with their husbands.
Do you want the women proud, independent who live with the man they respect and love or do you want them to depend from the men, and pretend that they love and respect them when in really they afraid or even hate them?
Happiness and love can not flourish under financial dependency and lack of choices.
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. The paid maternity, paternity and parental leave create better conditions for women to find their way.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Col Rouge
You 200-300 years before women was as in Muslim Countries today.
Father for work, mothers for children and kitchen. Slowly, slowly women started to claim their rights, progressive men have recognized their rights and have supported in the fight for equality between men and women. Most men at begin less and less later did not like to listen anything about women rights, "STAY AT HOME TO CARE THE KITS!", In our days the mass majority of men recognize women rights in words but do not do many things to undertake their responsibilities as fathers and in the work at home, (women's second sift). But still there are men like you who prefer women at home for the kits and the kitchen, but slowly, slowly they will disappeared. I do not expect after 3-4 generations any man in developed world to believe what you believe about women's role. In Muslim world it could take much more time except if they make a religious revolution.

Bellow I give some statistics of women and men unemployment, from United Nations, statistics division. (always first row women second men)

Egypt 2001 22.6 5.6
Canada 2003 7.2 8.0
Dominican Republic 2001 26.0 9.4
United States of America 2003 5.7 6.3
Colombia 2003 18.5 11.0
Suriname 1999 20.0 10.0
Saudi Arabia 2002 11.5 4.2
Japan 2003 4.9 5.5
Pakistan 2002 16.5 6.7
Syrian Arab Republic 2002 24.1 8.3
Austria 2003 4.2 4.3
Germany 2003 9.5 10.4
Greece 2002 14.6 6.2 (in my country there are many like you!)
Iceland 2002 2.9 3.6
Norway 2003 4.0 4.9
Sweden 2003 4.4 5.3
United Kingdom 2003 4.1 5.5
Armenia 2003 14.2 5.9
What do you want to tell you Col Rouge? The roles between men and women change rapidly and we (progressive people)press for even deeper faster changes!
regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi Antonios and Col
I realise that I’m popping up very late into the debate but I noticed this topic late and find it an important issue.

I agree, Antonios, that Australia should catch up with the rest of the world regarding paid maternity leave (preferably parental leave).
Getting rid of the baby bonus and directing this money towards paid maternity leave would be a good start.
I am so fed-up with our govt and governments generally atm that my political view is in dire need for a makeover so I’ll be working on that.

Within a marriage or relationship, most couples who start a family made that decision jointly, but for obvious biological reasons it is only the woman who needs to take time out to have the child, to recover and to breastfeed; she is the one who will end up without pay, superannuation, while her partner’s career and superannuation doesn’t need to be put on hold.
I don’t view paid maternity (or parental) leave as a sole ‘women’s issue’; it’s a pregnancy and child issue- the child needs to be cared for by its loving parents.

As far as I know, most countries offer paid leave through welfare; some offer it through businesses and a small number through health insurance.
Antonios, do you know how Greece finances paid maternity leave? I’m interested at looking at different country’s systems, just to find out what works best.
Col, do you know how does the UK does it?
Antonios, I’m from the Netherlands where there used to be 14 weeks paid maternity leave through the welfare system but there has been (and still going on) a reform because they think the residual socialist system is now outdated and becoming too expensive for the taxpayer. They already have 19% GST and quite high income taxes and not everyone benefits equally.
To reduce costs, since 2006, there have been some changes and one of them is that they got rid of paid maternity leave through welfare and instead organised, what they call, a “life course regulation.”
It’s not compulsory, but adviced.

Continued

It is some kind of savings plan with a very high earning interest rate and one is allowed to pay up to 12% of one’s earnings into it without paying tax over that amount or over the interest earned. It’s also not added to your asset base.

The savings plan can be used for any life changing events you choose, e.g. taking up to 3 years off (depending on your savings) to care for a baby, ill person/child, elderly family member, to take time out for work-related study.
If you don’t use it, it will automatically be paid out to you at your retirement date or you can use it to retire earlier since it's payment in addition to your general superannuation or pension.

So, both parents can take some ‘paid time’ out to care for a child if they have made use of the savings options.
I think it is not a bad system because it does save taxpayers' money and both partners can take responsibility to contribute to this fund and benefit from their investment and generous tax incentives to buy time to be available to their child.
Whether it works or not, we have to wait and see.

It is not yet very popular because people are also making use of another savings plan the govt has been promoting in the past and many haven’t changed to the life course savings plan.

Hello Antonios

You are very welcome. When I said I did not agree with you, I probably did not make my position clear. I guess I do not see a link between productivity, and providing extended maternal/paternal leave, and I do not think that these should be at the expense of employers (or we would be back in the days when women of child-bearing age were deliberately not chosen for jobs).

I also do not think the "baby bonus" in the form in which it was paid was acceptable, having had in my many and varied careers dealings with young women who deliberately (and openly stated that this was why they) got themselves pregnant. I was dealing with girls with children to multiple fathers and young fathers with children to several girls.

Having said that, I would prefer my tax dollars to go in support of young families than to prop up the export trade in live animals!

Regards
Nicky

“I SAY THAT WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL NOW IS AGAINST THE WOMEN, IT MAKES THEM TO DEPEND ON THEIR HUSBANDS, IT MAKES THEM WEAK, VOICELESS.”

Lower your voice, your shouting is childish

husbands and wives, almost all of them are men or women. Your point is pointless.

Especially when a lady became a leader of one of the western democracies and said “I owe nothing to Women's Lib. “

As for women, I prefer the strong independent ones who do not seek co-dependent relationships. They make the best lovers and mothers. Your experience might have meant you could only attract a door-mat but that says more about you than women.

“I want them to do what they want to do, because they choice it,”

The ones I know do so already, not sure what emotional cripples you are involved with, maybe socialist gals, with inadequacies about everything and looking to blame men for their pitiful lives.

“we (progressive people)press for even deeper faster changes”

We conservatives make sure the changes represent improvement and not just change for the sake of pointless change.

Cevelia always pleased to see you, even if we do not necessarily agree : - )

“Col, do you know how does the UK does it?”

My first daughter was born in UK, usual child tax relief and in UK tax was payable to joint assessment of husband and wife and small familyt allowance payment but no cash bonus. But I am talking 1980, things may well have changed.

My point remains, bringing a child into the world is a personal choice. How that child is brought up must be a parental personal choice. A child is not a community responsibility, it is a pair of individuals (parents) responsibility. Baby bonuses and paid maternity or paternity leave transfers some of the financial responsibility onto the general community, without transferring any right of input into the childs upbringing.

“no taxation without representation” applies here,

people should only bear the cost of children where they have an input into that childs upbringing

Can't afford kids, don't have them. Parental choice.

Hi Again all

Col, I agree with a bit of what you say there, but where is the "line in the sand"? Having children IS a personal choice, but the reality is that at least some of the population will have to choose to do it:). Where do you believe ANY support should begin and end?

Usually it is the mother who has to put a career "on hold" to raise children, as a consequence of that, women were denied access to superannuation until the late 1980s, resulting in their not having anything like enough income to live on in retirement. And that wasn't really their fault, that was the discrimination of the day. I remember my mother saying that she had to leave her job when she married (in the UK)!

Getting back to the line in the sand; what about pensioners? You could describe a whole lot of them as a liability, and should the community determine how they live (taxation v representation argument). Should we decide when they die? What about the ones claiming, for example, disability support pensions and either happily working and/or engaging in other interests/hobbies?

Or should we totally disenfranchise pensioners?

Just a thought,
Cheers
Nicky

As Col said=
it will hinder future employment, especially for females.
It will contribute to wage inflation
It will reduce Australian competitiveness
It will favour one segment of the workforce (females) to the detriment of others (males)

I agree with Col on this one.

I have little free time today, I will answer you tomorrow, Now I will give you extra information about maternity paternity, parental leave etc.

A study conducted during 1989–1990 in Georgia, USA, showed that fathers appear to be vital for their infant. The researchers studied 217 798 fathers; the overall mortality rate was 10.6 per 1000 live births. Infants with their father’s names missing on their birth certificates, a measure of paternity, had a mortality rate of 19.8 per 1000 live births compared with 8.6 for children where the fathers name was on their birth certificate.

A study has shown that separation among couples is less common in families where fathers have taken parental leave

Fathers are important for their child’s growth and development, emotional health and cognitive development.

European fathers on parental leave – a statistical overview
http://www.european-fatherhood.com/knowledge.php?mode=view&id=58

In Sweden Paid parental leave is currently 16 months, in addition to 10 paid days off right at the birth. Parents who stay home with their children receive 80 percent of their gross salary, with a ceiling of 307,500 kronor ($50,000) for 2008.

One hundred twenty-nine of the 158 countries reporting to the International Social Security Association in 1997 11,12 provided at least some paid maternity leave.(not Australia)

Most benefits are paid through the sickness (or temporary disability) benefit system, but in Canada, Austria, and Denmark (for the second-tier benefit) it is the unemployment insurance system
that funds and delivers the benefit. In a few countries, the employer is required by law to provide the leave and pay the benefit. Thus, for example, in Germany, the basic maternity leave is paid at full wages, with employers required to “top off” the benefit to cover any wages above the maximum covered

parental leave around the world
http://www.haaba.com/news/2008/03/11/7-103931/time-off-work-with-kids-parental-leave-around-the-world.htm

In my political party from the UK in the European Parliament, there are 27 members but 26 of us are men. What we’re challenging to do is to go for positive discrimination.

Celivia
You asked me who pay the maternity, paternity, parental leave. My anwser is.. I do not know! I am for many years far from Greece, Germany, Cyprus, Australia, from 1976. I read every day Greek newspapers online but I did not find any information about it, SORRY!
Did you submit to productivity commission your thoughts about maternity-parental leave ? Do it, in the page 1 I have a link.
The system which promote the Australian Union movement take parts from Swedish and German model. Minimum Government plus employers the rest to the real income. Question is about the small business, I think the Union could show an understanding for the small business (I am member from the Union but I try to establish my own business do not trust me 100%!) In USA many states have maternity-paternal leave (the employers pay the insurance but not small business in some states if less than 5 employees The maximum I found in a state is less than 25 employees. This is not fair, because employees in small businesses do not receive paid leave at all.
Celivia I gave some info in page 4 and I will give more info in other posts. Sorry time limits!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Nicky
Thank you again!
You remind me a friendly person from Western suburbs of Adelaide. I checked your history you write very often! and you know PALE from the past. I am a little bit busy and I can not write on time but I can not do many things about it. SORRY!
Nicky you have good ideas and you know how to promote them!
About the maternity, paternity, parental leave.

1. Studies show increasing paid maternity leave significantly reduces infant mortality. A 10-week increase in paid leave - we have none - could result in a fall of between 2.3 and 2.5 per cent in infant mortality. A 10-week increase in paid leave reduces the mortality rate among babies aged 28 days to one year by 4.1 per cent.

2.A study shows fathers appear to be vital for their infant. The researchers studied 217 798 fathers; the overall mortality rate was 10.6 per 1000 live births. Infants with their father’s names missing on their birth certificates, a measure of paternity, had a mortality rate of 19.8 per 1000 live births compared with 8.6 for children where the fathers name was on their birth certificate.

3.Women with paid maternity leave are more likely to return to work (up to 90%) than those without,

4.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.
5 A study has shown that separation among couples is less common in families where fathers have taken parental leave.
6. Studies show that although women are more educated than men, in European Union 62% of University students are women, 36% of women work part time, only 6% men work part time, and most of the other women work in low paid jobs of cause their reproduction duty.
continue

continue
Nicky
WHY? IS THE CHILD ONLY FOR THE MOTHERS? NOT FOR THE FATHERS, NOT FOR THE COUNTRY, NOT FOR EMPLOYERS? Why the women have to destroy their carrier for the children? Why the women have to be depended from the men when they could be financially independent and totally equal with the men? Some says women are for the kits and kitchen, men for work. If this happened it leaves women unprotected and THIS IS NOT TRUTH, FROM STATISTICS, SEE PAGE 13, IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MORE MEN ARE UNEMPLOYED THAN WOMEN, WOMEN ARE EMPLOYED BUT THEY HAVE BAD, LOW PAID , CASUAL OR PART TIME WORKS.
The paid maternity, paternity, parental leave ,especial the parental leave creates the conditions for parent's shared responsibilities for the kits and give time for the women to care for their carriers, for the future. IS IT BAD IF I WANT AND TRY FOR PEOPLE TO STAND ON THEIR OWN FEET, TO BE EQUAL WITH THE OTHERS, TO BE CONFIDENT AND PROUD FOR THEIR SELF? AND I WANT IT FOR MEN OR WOMEN, FOR LOCALS OR MIGRANTS, FOR RELIGIOUS OR ATHEISTS, FOR CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS, WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION. I WANT THE LIBERATION FROM HUMAN BEINGS FROM OLD MYTHES AND SINS
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Nicky “ I agree with a bit . . but where is the "line in the sand"?”

Thankyou for your agreement, Nicky.

Hard to say where is the line.

I would tend to suggest people who are responsible will decide for themselves.

That just leaves them who are not responsible.

I know I disagreed with someone else recently (maybe Cevelia) about children and how far the community should go to protect children from the irresponsibility of their parents and this is much the same “line” as we have here.

I do not believe parents should have some gold-plated safety net to ensure children are not deprived.

I believe all that such mechanisms do is encourage the irresponsible to be more irresponsible whilst penalising the responsible.

I do not think children are better off being institutionalised away from their natural parents either, so that is the dilemma.

I believe, parents who seek discretionary welfare, for the benefit of their children, should receive only with “strings attached”. That is, the welfare should be paid as vouchers and so as not to encourage parental irresponsibility. If the burden of children is to be recognised more, greater income tax deductibility for having children will work to support the responsible parents.

Pensioners are those who have carried the burden of this country in years past, when we were kids. We should never forget them and remember, with luck, one day we will be counted among them.

We have changed the rules for society from a government pension based system to a self-fundung retiree. Not all would have made saved sufficiently to live reasonably in retirement. We should work to support them for the next say 20 years, until the cycle to self-funding has been fully implemented.

ASymeonakis you can bring up all the studies you want. They will all say children fare better with involved parents than disinterested parents.

However, the responsibility for every father and mother to engage with their children is with those parents, not the general community. Your case has failed, yet you just refuse to accept it.

Nicky,
I agree with much you are saying. I try not to think about the dreadful things that happen to our tax.

Col and Antonios, thanks for the info.
Antonios, I will go to your link to the commission and sign after I’ve posted this, thanks for reminding me.

Antonios said, “IS THE CHILD ONLY FOR THE MOTHERS? NOT FOR THE FATHERS, NOT FOR THE COUNTRY, NOT FOR EMPLOYERS? Why the women have to destroy their carrier for the children?”
I completely agree with you. Biology is no good reason for discrimination. I wish that the opponents of paid maternity leave would look at it as not just as a woman’s issue but a children’s one as well- in fact in benefits the whole family, and therefore, society.

Besides, babies benefit in every way from having a parent around as a fulltime carer during its first year, especially if the mother is breastfeeding. Ask any paediatrician and they will confirm this. Paid maternity leave will guarantee that one of the parents, preferably the breastfeeding mother, will be around for several months to care for the baby.
Antonios said, “The ACTU proposes a national system of 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full income replacement.”
Is that all they’re asking for? They should ask for six months. Are the costs of paid maternity leave so high that a wealthy nation like Australia can’t even afford 14 weeks? Or is it that Australia has its priorities wrong?
Calculate it; based on an average wage of say $50,000 pa, three months of pay would just cost $13,500 per child. Getting rid of the baby bonus and directing that money toward paid maternity leave will reduce the cost to well under $15,000 per child.
Under $15,000 to give an Australian baby a good start in life is not too much to ask for, especially with so many Australian children living in poverty.
Compare this meagre amount with the amount of tax that is being wasted on things like wars, the upcoming Catholic brainwashing event (could cost around 200million!), or people’s hobbies like football...

Continued

Not only people on high wages desire to raise a family and can be excellent parents Denying people of having a baby merely because of their income sounds almost inhumane.
The measly $15,000 for raising a child does not even mean that this money will be lost. Parents are not going to put this money away in a shoe box under their bed.

Where will the money end up? In the wallets of others, often of big businesses.
Parents will take their child to places like Wet&Wild and the movies. They will hire DVDs for the child. They will buy him toys, educational programs, computers and games, Happy Meals, whole new wardrobes several times a year and shoes, use hair dressers, even renting or buying a house with an extra room, a pet and a family car- all for the child.
Everywhere children go, businesses thrive. Part of these businesses’ tax should be spend on paid maternity leave, since these businesses make money out of other people’s children.

Col, I would think that the rule “no taxation without representation” does not apply here? Businesses do obviously benefit from other people’s kids.
Yes, you and I had a disagreement over a very similar issue. My view still is than children are innocent and should not have to live in poverty because their parents are irresponsible. You had good points as well, and I too can see the dilemma.
But I will always defend the children since they are the innocent part in this. Kids before money, not money before kids.

” welfare should be paid as vouchers and so as not to encourage parental irresponsibility.”
I have no real objection to your suggestion, so I’ll mildly reluctantly agree for the sake of children of irresponsible parents.

Obiviously, I made a mistake in my calculations, I previously based my calculations on 6 months and forgot to change it. We can either leave the calculations and offer 6 months paid maternity leave, or go for the 14 weeks.

At 14 weeks it works out even cheaper- under $8,500 is all it would cost Australia to pay maternity leave for each baby after we get rid of the baby bonus and introduce paid maternity leave.
How can one object to that when it will give every Australian baby and future contributor to our society a better start in life?

Hi all

Antonios, thank you so much for your kind words. I have one area of doubt here, and I've tentatively raised it before. Paid maternity leave is one thing, but what about the young women who have been getting pregnant solely for the baby bonus, who have never worked, and never intend to? I know that they would fall under the heading of Col's "irresponsible" parents, but that doesn't resolve the issue, and I assure you that those women are out there. These people left school at 14 or 15, and are often illiterate as a result too.

I have a friend who works in a support service for "young single mothers" and her clients have multiple children to multiple fathers, none (male or female) of whom have ever worked. She tells me that these women tell her quite openly that they are waiting for their youngest child to turn 5 or 6, when they would then be expected to look for work, then they will "just get pregnant again". These young fathers rarely involve themselves with their children.

When these women come to see her, she often has to feed their children, and we are talking of 18-22 years olds with three or four young children. In these households, no-one knows anyone who has had a job.

Col, are these the people for whom you are advocating a "voucher" system?

Are we going to, or have we, create/d a sub-culture?

Cheers
Nicky

Celivia
"Is that all they’re asking for?"
The Union movement in Australia is very week. union density 70% or higher for Scandinavian countries, about 16% for Australia and only 9% for USA. ALP did not support the Unions enough and conservatives have attacked on the Unions with many ways.
Australia has many migrants and many Unionists do not many things to support us (the non Anglo Saxon migrants) and we do not do not trust the Union very much. I am member from the Union because I am progressive, left not because I expect many things from it. Yesterday I took the results of specialist for my liver, his first word was " stop alcohol" and I answered I have to drink a glass of beer at least 35 years! it is from the chemicals in my work, I lost the ability to smell, the Union is missing. 15 years humiliation, no training, not any kind of opportunity, the dirty, unhealthy, the low paid hopeless work for migrants. It is not easy for union members under from migrants under these condition, we are about 50% of population.
Only Australia and USA do not pay maternity leave, where was so many years the ALP and Trade Unions, the first convention was in 1922 about a century before, many times the ALP as government had the opportunities to show their support for women but they did not. Most new members from the Unions worldwide come from women but the Unions must do something for them.
Australian Union movement stand more on white collars and not on blue but the union members come from blue collars, they have the huge problems. The labor aristocracy has taken maternity leave (most of them). Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick advocate for the immediate implementation of a federally funded 14-week maternity leave scheme, to be paid at the rate of the federal minimum wage.
At the 2nd stage, begin in two years, would give mothers and fathers a share in an additional 34 weeks' paid parental leave.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Nicky!
"Are we going to, or have we, create/d a sub-culture?"
There are some problems with some people. What can we do for them? In USA 1% of population is in prison soon very soon in USA the number of prisoners will increased as they spend they taxes for current and former wars and they have not money for social programs as every prisoner creates more prisoners.
Nicky! listen to me! I am atheist but I am humanist, do you remember what said Christ Jesus?"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and gave me water, I was cold and you gave me cloths, I was in prison and you visited me" In these cases Nicky my suggestion is to understand and support these people, do not push them to the hell, let 's make their life the best we can do under our circumstances.
I AM A HUMANIST AND I WANT TO DIE AS A HUMANIST
regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi Antonios

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I wonder what the best way of delivering support to these people is. The reality is that there is a substantial number who are clearly unfit and irresponsible parents.

What happens to those children when the parents (and they do, I met many through my work in correctional/justice environments) spend what money they get on drugs and alcohol? At what point are those children not better off without those parents? The schools in the area I am referring to provide "Breakfast Clubs" and lunches because the children arrive at school hungry. One system does not fit all, that's the point I was seeking to make.

Cheers
Nicky

Cevelia “Col, I would think that the rule “no taxation without representation” does not apply here? Businesses do obviously benefit from other people’s kids.”

Who is talking about business C?

I am talking about all the other people who decide to bring children into the world but do not seek handouts from the taxpayer and who would rather bring their children up with no taint of socialism to contaminate their lives.

“My view still is than children are innocent and should not have to live in poverty because their parents are irresponsible.”

And my view is you do not impoverish the rest of society to supply a gold plated safety net for those irresponsible parents. No one will ever guarantee no child will not live in poverty. Such ideals are fanciful and suffer the inevitable consequences of “diminishing returns”, the further they are pursued.

“Kids before money, not money before kids.”

And I believe in individual liberty before the needs of someone else’s kids.

You can phrase it any way you like but no one can implement the impossible dream, regardless of how much sincerity or sentimentality it is wrapped in.

Nicky “These people left school at 14 or 15, and are often illiterate as a result too.”

I have 2 daughters aged 27 and 24, both work, one is about to get married. Neither has a child.

The elder one was in school with a child pregnant at 14 then again at 16. She still comes in casual contact with then girl these days and is disgusted by that girls lack of values and subsequent decline into a chronic welfare case.

“Col, are these the people for whom you are advocating a "voucher" system?”

I think they would “qualify”.

“Are we going to, or have we, create/d a sub-culture?”

We are individually responsible for our actions.

With pride, through the extent of my actions, have produced responsible adult daughters.

It is the ignorant and selfish bastards, who want a handout at every turn, who produced the sub-culture you talk about.

My daughters and I just pay our taxes.

Nicky
You have right the only thing I can tell about it is understanding and maximum support to innocent children, may be the schools, teachers could detect and support children with problematic parents.
I supposed the children with problematic parents have many and various problems and each one of them needs different kind of support according to their parents problems.
Nicky I do not know many things about it and may be it could be good for these children if you open a new thread about this problem. May be we can promote these breakfast clubs, I do not know many things about breakfast clubs.
I PREFER TO SPENT MY TIME IN THREADS WITH THIS KIND OF ISSUES-PROBLEMS THAN TO WASTE MY TIME IF THERE IS GOD OR NOT.
I am very sorry for the "listen to me" I wanted to emphasize how important is for me the understanding, generosity and support to people in need, especially for the children.
REGARDS
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi all

Col, you are to be congratulated on your daughters. But the interesting question is where has the sub-culture problem come from? Welfare benefits being too easy?

In some of the communities in which I have worked, these are children having children, because they get (or got?) a several thousand dollar bonus for doing so. There is little or no thought of the future of that child, who should have the right to be able to rely on its parent/s for the development of values and directions.

The only person some of these people who know who has, or has had, a job are people like Community Service, Probation and Parole workers and teachers from school. They receive very cheap housing in circumstances that can really only be described as ghettos, accumulate drug debts that would scare the rest of us to death, and there never seem to be any consequences.

But who knows? Without the benefits of a stable family life and an education, there but for the grace of "God" may have been the rest of us.

Antonios, I wish I knew what the solution was. In many of these "ghetto" communities there are incredibly dedicated service workers who do what they can in terms of material help like food and clothing, and they try to engage these parents in some kind of self-awareness. But where I worked, these kids are growing into appalling young vandals. We had to regularly call the police to deal with them (young teenagers, missing from school) because they threaten aged pensioners for money and cigarettes. It is truly frightening. So what do we do?

Cheers
Nicky

Antonios,
I’m sorry to hear about your health problems. Hopefully, with today’s OH&S, things have improved for others, but that doesn’t erase the problems you have.
I wish you much success in your own business.

Nicky,
Thank you for sharing your experiences, these examples are truly shocking and heartbreaking.

Col,
“… all the other people who decide to bring children into the world but do not seek handouts from the taxpayer …”
I think paid maternity leave is more about the idea that both parents should be equally financially affected by having a child.
Even though the male and female jointly decide to have a baby, for biological reasons the female has been making financial sacrifices by taking time off work and missing out on income and on future income as well- superannuation.
The zeitgeist needs to move on and I don’t know how this disproportion can be balanced without introducing paid maternity leave.

“… do not impoverish the rest of society to supply a gold plated safety net for those irresponsible parents.”
Paid maternity leave is not about irresponsible parents; it will apply to responsible women who were working prior to becoming pregnant. It is not paid to bludgers, like the baby bonus is. I don’t agree with every facet of the safety net but I do agree with paid maternity leave for reasons mentioned previously.

“No one will ever guarantee no child will not live in poverty.”
I believe that child poverty can be greatly reduced. Other countries are doing better than Australia (I showed you the 2007 rates in our previous debate, where child poverty rates were worst in US and UK and best in the Netherlands followed by the Scandinavian countries).

Anyway, I accept the voucher system; at least the children will be fed and clothed. The examples Nicky gave are extremely disturbing :- (
At least getting rid of the baby bonus won’t encourage breeding by some people who should not be parents.
Do any of you know whether a voucher system has been successful in other countries?

Continued

Col,
your daughters turned out to be lovely, responsible women because they came from a loving, caring home.
But there are many kids who were born into negative environments through no fault of their own and they need help.
The challenge is to break the poverty cycle, and while I realise that money alone cannot break it, because it is not merely lack of money that creates it, I do strongly believe that child poverty can be minimised IF taxpayers money is used wisely by a smaller, more clever and caring government.

Agreed that there need to be consequences for people’s choices, but I wish there was a positive solution like encouraging education and participation in the workforce rather than encouraging people to merely breed.
Years ago, I read something about a trial in the US where they paid children at school for reading books etc and the results were promising. I haven’t given this a lot of thought but I’m looking for positive encouragement rather than punishing consequences- these people have been punished enough by being trapped in a poverty cycle they cannot seem to break without help.

”I believe in individual liberty before the needs of someone else’s kids.”
Doesn’t that just translate to: who gives a crap about child neglect and poverty as long as my own kids are OK and adults can be free? Since children don’t contribute to society, nobody, other than the parents, should have to contribute to their wellbeing, since that would be reducing the liberty of adults?
Col, I know that you don’t like to see children suffer and that you give to charities so I’m a puzzled when you say cold things like that.
Yes, individual liberty is important and I value it, too, but we don’t live in a bubble isolated from the suffering of others, especially of innocent children.

I may not (yet) fully understand your philosophy, but what I understand is that you equate freedom/liberty with paying less tax.
I can accept that, but what about the freedom/liberty of children? All children deserve at least the basics.

Hi all

Celevia, that was very insightful, and said a whole lot of what I was trying to say. The people I worked amongst were effectively born "behind the eighth ball", what (family) role models they had were terrible, and they grew up with a value system driven by welfare.

I remember years ago I worked for the Commonwealth Employment Service. Back then, we wrote education and training programs which were delivered "on the job" with host employers. The people were not paid by Social Security, but by the employer (who was then proportionally reimbursed by the government). They made an amazing difference to people who had been on the "dole" for years, and many actually remained in the jobs after their program time ended. Then Howard scrapped all that (and us!) and brought in "Work for the Dole", with the punitive elements that go with that (including the name) and we went backwards again. People refer to unemployment benefits now as their "pay".

I think somehow communities have to reach these children before too much damage is done, before they grow up into damaged adults whose only solution is sole parent allowances and no responsibility and the cycle keeps repeating itself. Suggestions, anyone? After all, there but for the grace of "God" ... It's a bit too broad a statement to say everyone is responsible for their actions, I think. Some of us had the benefits of a good upbringing, discipline and education, but many didn't.

Cheers
Nicky

Col Rouge,
We do not speak for our children but for the children for the mothers and fathers generally. But as you wrote for your children I will write few words for my children. Sole parent, low income RACE DISCRIMINATION, language problems but at least two of my three children are not from the worst on our world, my daughter 28 working and studying, dean at Adelaide university, manager overseas. My son with many awards, distinctions, work and study IT (continue), few years before in The Advertiser (local newspaper)was a photo with three students awarded from a minister and title OUR FUTURE LEADERS. On of them, in the meddle, was my son. OK? I am not from the worst fathers. The question is what we can do to support the women to improve their position in our society and parallel create better conditions for our children, ALL THE CHILDREN. The paid maternity, paternity, parental leave, especially the parental leave, will support mothers and children.
Col Rouge
While you put your self as the center of our society, and less or more you ignore the other people of our society, I put the society as the center of the people who are moving to different directions, with different speed, goals, dreams and values. While each person seems that is moving as an individual, in really he/she is full of effects, values, dreams, ideas and DNA from the past and present from his society. The individualism is not very different from the independence of a 2 years old child as it run around its mother. The individualism is an excellent excuse to avoid social responsibilities while he/she fully enjoy the benefits of his/her society.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

“I think paid maternity leave is more about the idea that both parents should be equally financially affected by having a child.”
When married, generally with joint bank accounts and both names on the mortgage, BOTH parents are equally affected by having a child.

Being paid to have a child is to defray the financial effect onto non-prents.

“But there are many kids who were born into negative environments”

Like I said, you will never, ever eliminate from society some children so abused. But there has to be a limit to the degree of support anyone gives because every dollar deflected to supporting the children of irresponsible parents is a dollar removed from parents supporting their own children.

“who gives a crap about child neglect and poverty as long as my own kids are OK and adults can be free?”

Accepting I am responsible for my children and the can, in some small way take credit for their success in flying the nest, leaves me to wonder why, if the model I used works so well (bearing in mind I went through a divorce when my children were 8 and 13), do not other parents who prefer the irresponsible option use it ?

And when they do not behave responsibly who picks up the tab?

It is like Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Simply because an irresponsible parent lacks the character to look after their children, do not expect me to put them before my own.

My view of self responsibility has a consequence, it means I do actually expect others to be equally responsible and I do not assume exception.

“but what I understand is that you equate freedom/liberty with paying less tax.”

Wrong, it is a two step relationship.

I relate more tax with bigger, more intrusive and commanding government.

I relate bigger, more commanding government with less freedom/liberty.

Smaller taxes and direct philanthropy works better than government leveled handouts.

ASymeonakis “Sole parent, low income RACE DISCRIMINATION, language problems”

Sole Parent
I separated from the mother of my daughters in 1993, I never sought or received any government handouts and paid maintenance (more than I was required and lost 70% of the joint assets). I know all about sole parenting.

Low income: if you cannot afford children, do not have them.

Race discrimination: do not know what this has to do with anything

Language problems: it is the responsibility of every new Australian to acquire the skills to assimilate into the Australian system. Anyone which “language difficulties” should educate themselves for their own benefit, not expect handouts for being illiterate.

“ALL THE CHILDREN.”

Sentimentalist aspirations do not solve problems. You are seeking to divert my discretionary resources into the direction you want using sentimentality. It will not work.. I refer you back to Margaret Thatcher, in my previous post.

“While you put your self as the center of our society,”

I see myself as separate, not the centre of society and since what I do worked, for the benefit of the children who I am responsible for, I cannot see how you can criticize it.

Ultimately we want a “sustainable society”.

Me looking after mine is the “sustainable model”.

Taxing me to look after the responsibilities of those who give up and neglect their children is “non-sustainable”.

As for “society as the center of the people”

I have never met “society”, I know only people.

I know they move at their own rates and the socialist model is designed to slow the faster so they will get no further than the slower, like institutionalized mediocrity.

“The individualism is an excellent excuse to avoid social responsibilities”
show me where I have ever avoided myself of my responsibilities?
I earn a lot, so possibly pay a lot more tax (responsibility) than you too

Lenin said “Everything is connected to everything else” but as we know, Lenin was a twisted and malevolent despot.

(I like to balance Margaret quotes with Lenin quotes, she shows the light and he the darkness)

Col Rouge
"There is no such thing as Society"
Bush thought that there is not society but only individual and of cause he failed to support New Orleans people.
In the big tsunami in Indonesian we did not care for specific individuals but for various societies, from Indonesian to Somalia. Only people like you could think and support individual specific persons, all the others was supporting people, whole societies.
When ALQUEDA destroyed the New York Center they did not kick individuals, Antonios, Col Rouge, etc, they kicked Americans, they kicked the western civilization? Do you understand that? THEY KICKED THE WHOLE AMERICAN SOCIETY NOT INDIVIDUALS.
"I have never met “society”, I know only people" You do not know people you know only specific individuals, YOU KNOW AND CARE ONLY FOR SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, YOU DO NOT CARE AT ALL FOR THE PEOPLE=SOCIETY.
Col Rouge I understand that I can not change your mind but I am sure you understand that we voted the ALP for its program and it have to give the paid maternity leave etc.
Low income of cause race discrimination and of cause some people like you saw the problem but they did not care for my rights.
IF THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THEN SOONER OR LATER OUR SOCIETY COULD CONVERTED TO A JUNGLE. What about the terrorists threat have we got there a problem as society or ONLY specific individuals ? Do you think we, as society, we have to do something and protect Australia from terrorists or not? If you think the government must protect the whole society then your theory for only individuals is collapsed, then the only question which stand is government's priorities. In this case the paid maternity leave is on the top priorities as it was in the ALP program and we voted the ALP to realize its program. You are from the other site, from the losers side, but do not worry. Howard even did not elect MP.

A Symeonakis
Sometimes it is best to admit ones defeat and throw the towl in, however, if you feel so strongly about your quest then may I suggest that you raise as many supporters that you can then you can all pay pay into a maternity fund to support all new mothers and put your minds at rest while leaving the rest of us alone.

Most of us just don't want it - GET IT!

In my industry we are already faced with having to pay females 94% of a males wage, these are unqualified females who are not allowed to use a knife, saw, mincer or any other peice of equipment and, to now add this additional burdon on my fellow employers would be like signing a death warrent as far as future employment prospects go for female employees.

Remember, there is nothing stopping you from supporting the 'bleeding hearts club'. Just don't ask me to assist as I feel there are far more needy recipients of my hard earned taxes.

rehctub
" leaving the rest of us alone" The truth is that there are not many people who agree with you about maternity, paternity, parental leave.
I believe within 12 months we will have the paid maternity, paternity, parental leave, it is good for mothers, good for children, GOOD FOR AUSTRALIA. I am sure that sooner or later you will find how useful is the paid maternity leave etc. at begin many people worry from any changes but soon they discover how good and useful they are. If it is good for all the other countries it will be good for Australia too. Do not worry, we are the last country in the world without it. In USA many States pay maternity leave.
"Most of us just don't want it - GET IT! " How many are you? 1%, 2% or 3% of Australian population? We fully respect and protect your rights to disagree with the mass majority of Australians. That's the beauty of democracy, one day powerful prime minister and next day even not MP!
My best wishes for success on your business!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Celivia
" your own business" do not misunderstand me! I do not care for business for the business at all. I could live on a tree or in a cave, I am very simple person and the money do not say many things to me.
BUT
1 I am 57 years old what could happen if I lose my job? I can not find an other one, this could be a disaster for me I need to create a job for me a safety net.
2. My income is low I must improve it, my only way is to start some kind of my own business.
3. I want to be an active citizen but who could listen to an 15 years offsider, to a low income employee? If I want my activities to have some results I mast improve my professional and financial position.
4. I do not know if you understand me but in really I am not so soft as I seem, I am hard in my goals and ideas! I need more free time and better health conditions for my activities. I need my own business!
5. My final battle will not be for my business but for my ideas. If I have to die for them I WILL DO, may be for migrants rights.
About the OH&S do not worry I will know about it when the time come!
Now I am working as employee and I try to establish my own business, when I say do not trust me I do not mean I am totally useless!
regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Nicky,
That must’ve been very rewarding work. It's a real shame on the Howard government for scrapping that program.
This is an example of the positive encouragements we need! People need to feel wanted and need meaningful work and children need an outlook that inspires and motivates them. The wrong role models, day after day, year after year, can be terribly depressing and demotivating for any child.
I think that there needs to be a change in attitude towards the caring professions including looking after children, who are very important because they are our next generations.

Antonios,
Like Col, you can be proud of your kids. Seems like you did a good job raising them.
And it’s wonderful that you have your ideas and goals together for your business. I understand your purpose for starting a business and that’s why I wish you much success with all your plans including your business.

Col
The majority of people, despite their differences in every facet of life, have raised wonderful, responsible children.

To be able to raise healthy, responsible and loving children, families should have at least access to the basics: food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care. All children need is at least the basic needs and for their parents to give them attention, love and care, to listen to them, to understand them, and to support them emotionally.
A child who has been deprived of basic needs, love and care, role models, will have low self esteem and won’t be confident and trusting of others enough to even attempt to fit into a classroom, a club, or a job.

“When married, generally with joint bank accounts and both names on the mortgage, BOTH parents are equally affected by having a child.”
Not really- the woman misses out on future income, superannuation, while she is dependent on the income of her husband. The mother loses her financial independence while the father does not. In many households, dual income is necessary to be able to pay all the bills.

Continued

Paid maternity leave keeps women linked to the workforce and doesn’t force women to become dependent on their husband’s income. Maternity leave doesn’t force men to become sole breadwinners, and last but not least, it gives babies a good start in life.

To say ‘if you cannot afford children, do not have them” is too simple.
Maternity leave is not only about affordability; it is also about balancing inequalities between the one who gives birth and the one who does not.
Women should be able to take time out to give birth and spend time with their baby to establish breastfeeding and bonding without having to stress over losing a job or not being able to contribute to the household.

To say ’if you can’t afford children, don’t have them’ would be a better and fairer point if:
* Our school curriculum included compulsory, comprehensive and explicit sex education.
* Contraception was free of charge (at least for students and other low incomers).
* Abortion was legal until a reasonable cut-off, and not only permitted if a doctor decides that it would damage a woman’s health.
* Pregnant women had no feelings towards their foetus. I had a strong instinctive urge to protect my foetuses so I can imagine forced abortion would traumatise a woman.

Children are our future; therefore we can invest in the future if we invest in children.
Something could be attached to paid leave, e.g. do a free parenting course to be able to qualify for paid parental leave. That way, parents will be more professional carers and will likely produce more responsible citizens.
Something could be attached to family payments too, like regular recertifications of parenting courses, similar to how we recert for 1st Aid.
At the moment people get paid for doing nothing, even if they neglect the needs of their child. At least, if they get paid from our taxes, let them get paid for being more qualified carers to look after our next generation.
Parenting is the most important human work and should be valued more.

“tsunami in Indonesian we did not care for specific individuals but for various societies”

Aid went to the individuals.

First feed and attended to the medical needs of those individuals, bury the dead individuals and help individual families replace fishing boats etc.

The societal benefit is dispensed through helping individuals. Seems to me someone has got it “arse about face” and it is not me.

As for New Orleans, I think there were a catalogue of failures across different US administrations, primarily of course, at the state level. Bush was never a part of Louisiana state government. Again more “arse about face”

“ALQUEDA destroyed the New York Center they did not kick individuals,”
Al Qeada wanted to bring “War” to the US people.
They indiscriminately attacked the (individual) people of USA with the intent of undermining their resolve. Same too IRA attacks in London, (I was there, working in Bond St, just off Oxford St) designed to alter the feelings of the ordinary Londoners, as individuals.

“YOU DO NOT CARE AT ALL FOR THE PEOPLE”
no different to “all those people” care about me, as an individual.

“we voted the ALP”
I voted against them and I was not alone.

“IF THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THEN SOONER OR LATER OUR SOCIETY COULD CONVERTED TO A JUNGLE.”

It has been values like mine which have innovated and created the wealth which people like you think that just because you can breathe, you are entitled to.

If you want what I have, you work for it like I have done.

I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I pay taxes and have rights.

First right is I am entitled to think for myself and act upon those thoughts.

That someone like you would seek to deny me the reward for my efforts and steal through excessive taxes for maternity leave etc, from me because you are too ignorant or idle to work as effectively or profitably as me, shows what a selfish bastard you really are.

I shake hands with individuals and never met a “society”.

“If you think the government must protect the whole society”

Government protects the interests of the individual people who vote in elections.

“You are from the other site, from the losers side”

Ah the losers who managed the economic abundance of the last decade to produce multi-billion dollar government surpluses and overcame the debt ridden incompetence of the Keating and Hawke governments multi-billiion dollar government inflationary debts.

Krudd has all the hallmarks of a one term government, especially when people associate him with the forthcoming recession.

“I do not care for business for the business at all. I could live on a tree or in a cave,”

Obviously other people “employment prospects” are at serious risk.

Of course, no employment, no need for maternity leave.

Living in a cave offers little attraction to me, I aspire to and work for better.

“My income is low I must improve it, my only way is to start some kind of my own business.”

I have run my own businesses for the past 20 years, maybe if you listened more you might pick up a tip or two (secret – it starts with “attitude”)

“If I have to die for them I WILL DO,” that is your right.
My right is to die for mine too but I prefer to live free and to be able to encourage self-reliance in others.

Self-reliance is the reward (as well as the path) which pays for itself through self growth and fulfillment as well as enrichment.

It is far better a path to follow than the levelers mediocrity of collective socialism, not just for the "self-reliant" individual but for all those who decide to follow the example.

Ultimately, "socialism" just describes the first (base) level on Maslows hierarchy. I suggest you find out about it.

Celivia “The majority of people, despite their differences in every facet of life, have raised wonderful, responsible children.”

I have never suggested otherwise C.

All those wonderful people are the ones who are taxed, denying them of their own resources needed for their own children, to support the irresponsible peoples children and there is a limit to that institutional benevolence.

“the woman misses out on future income, superannuation, while she is dependent on the income of her husband.”

You miss the point entirely

“She” or “he” does not matter, it is their “union” of being a couple (hopefully in marriage if children are involved) which they both chose and which they both share.

His or her individual finances are superseded by their joint income, expenses, assets and liabilities.

Re the shortcomings of the education system, write to the labor controlled government minister in your state. The rest,
I have no problem with free contraception (better than unwanted children who will become neglected and likely future neglectors).
you already know my views on abortion.

“Children are our future; therefore we can invest in the future if we invest in children.”

I did that as an individual through my own children. However, it is subject to the law of diminishing returns, like all economic activity.

Col Rouge

The society, the community is on the top, individuals are part from the community, part from the society. The importance (positive or negative)of each individual increased as we are moving from the big societies to the smaller one. The importance of each individual (for him self) is in its highest level when the individual feels and behaves as a selfish individual, ignoring the conditions,needs, goals and dreams from his society, from his community.
The society, community, is stronger when it has many members, many individuals and when the individuals feel as part of the society, community and act according to the general directions, needs, goals and dreams of their society, community. If the individuals distance their self from their community, from their society THEN THEIR SOCIETY,THEIR COMMUNITY HAS NO FUTURE. Many individuals speak against their community or even do not recognize the existence from their community, society but all these are empty, words. IN FACT THEY CONTINUE TO ACT WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY, WITHIN THEIR SOCIETY.
Always there is a distance between individuals and their society, this distance become bigger as the conditions, goals, dreams, between the individuals are bigger. Big inequality and conflicts of interests between the individuals blocks the progress from their society and sooner or later create problems for each individual, even to individuals with less dependency (as Col Rouge) from their society.
The best conditions for a society and its individual members is when there are the minimum conflicts between the society and individuals and when there is the minimum inequality between the members of a society, between its individuals.
Humanity has had many bad experiences from extreme conditions from systems which use the society and social benefits as an excuse to promote their own benefits, see communist countries or opposite in other systems in the name of individual's benefits used brutal inhuman ways as slavery, fascism, Nazism and in our days the NEO CONSERVATIVES who are ready to use or who used ways not compatible with our civilization.
continue
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"Government protects the interests of the individual people who vote in elections"
Government protects the interests from its country, from its society, from its community, protecting the general benefits also protects the benefits from individuals but in a deferent degree for each individual. I had to be idiots if I believed that Howard was protecting my benefits as Antonios, I do not think you believe that the government protects Col Rouge as individual, as you are part from Australia society, you benefited too.
What means "who voted on elections" What about the migrants who are not citizens? what about the hundreds thousands of British who did not become Australian citizens but they lived here for many decades? Australian ALP government can not and it does not discriminate against Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents, also protects the rights from tourists, temporary residents etc, even the rights from refugees and illegal migrants! I think you remember Howard's government, forget them! Howard did not elect even MP , Liberals popularity is under 6% and I think they need, 50-60 years to return back.
AS THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT THE BENEFITS FROM AUSTRALIAN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN SIMULTANEOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT YOUR BENEFITS TOO, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR DISAGREE WITH IT.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

“The society, the community is on the top, individuals are part from the community, part from the society.”

That is what is wrong with your philosophy.

The individual is paramount because it is only the individual who innovates, invents, inspires, improves the products, processes and services which are used potentially by all.

The only purpose of “society” is to support the individuals who comprise it.

A society based on “keeping all the same” will achieve relative mediocrity, compared to the collective of individuals.

A moral and energetic collection of individuals will achieve greater wealth, not only as individuals but with collective benefits for all.

Wealth in this context is not limited to the material wealth, which the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy fixates upon but the elevated levels.

“individuals feel as part of the society, community and act according to the general directions, needs, goals and dreams of their society,”

given choice, the individuals gravitate back to natural families of parents and children, regardless of the society, check the demise of Israeli kibbutz’s for evidence of that.

The direction, needs and goals are individually, not societally orientated and

“dreams”, no society has a “dream”, it only occasionally gets a dream of an individual politician inflicted upon it.

“NEO CONSERVATIVES who are ready to use or who used ways not compatible with our civilization.”

“Labeling politics” and pretending my views conform to your judgmental label is a cheap shot.

I believe in the sovereignty of the individual. I espouse that view consistently across a range of social platforms from abortion to national government. That you lack the vocabulary to describe it as anything other than “Neo Conservative” is up to you.

I voted Conservative in UK (Margaret Thatcher) and Liberal in Australia.

I am proud of how I have voted and know that my vote preserves my rights and your right to choice.

What you support is a system which ultimately leads to the horrors of a Lenin or a Stalin.

For that reason, you have a lot to learn from me and I have nothing to learn from you.

ASymeonakis
I think this debate is getting off track and onto politics.

The point is, while we are talking politics, that one only needs look at what a mess the state labour government has made of QLD. Boy did 'back flip beaty' know what was brewing when he pulled the pin.

We currently have in excess of 60,000 migrants (interstate that is) moving here per year and have done so for almost a decade now. These people, along with the rest of us have contibuted record amounts of taxes through GST, stamp duties, to name just a few and guess what?
We are officially IN-THE-RED!

This type of gross incompitence has been wide spead with many state labour governments failing on health, water and many other needs and, all this happens when they already know to some extent what thier revenue is going to be ahead of time.

I take great pride in the fact that I am in no way responsible for voting these fools in to power yet the downside is that I must to carry the burdon of thier collective incompitence. Bring on the next election and tell your lot not to tie themselves into any 'long term ' commitments.

Now back to the toppic.
As a business owner like col for some 20 years I can tell you quite simply, irrigardless of the numbers, that if the maternity leave is introduced women of child bearing age will suffer in the workforce.

Freindly advice that you can either take or leave but please DON'T-COMPLAIN if my prediction is right!

rehctub,

I too take great pride in knowing that I was not involved in putting them in either.
You right QLD is in trouble after NSW.
As far as encouraging these woman to have more kids by six month paid leave in a world thats over populated already thatys how stupid they are.
Small Biz is closing at 700 per month since this Government got it.
Hey have you heard these irresponsible idiots are now also encouraging woman who have never worked or pauid tax in their lives to apply for the six months paid leave as well?

Australia has the highest rate of unmarried woman and girls having kids for the rest of us to keep.
Now this twit wants us to pay to encourage more.
If people want kids- fine. So long as they dont ask me to pay for it.
I dont mind paying for the aboriginal kids and the elderly but married or unmarried. You want kids? Then you pay.
Anyway this Governments stuffed already. We wont see a return to ALP thats for sure.
Unlike the bloke who statred this thread the rest of us have a few other ideas- thank goodness

Hi PALE and Rehctub,
“…woman who have never worked or pauid tax in their lives to apply for the six months paid leave as well?”
I must’ve missed that, is there a link to this info? If it’s true then it makes no sense. What exactly would they be leaving from? This paid leave should apply to working women only and should replace the baby bonus.

While I agree that it would be a bad idea to expect private enterprise to foot the bill, Rehctub and PALE need to understand that there is no negative effect on business and on women when the federal government funds the bill. It should be the choice of the individual businesses whether or not they offer to top up the woman’s minimal leave payments. Don’t forget that many big businesses thrive on the child consumer. If woman stop having babies they will go bankrupt.
As I explained before, women’s participation in the workforce becomes greater wherever PLM (paid maternity leave) exists, as we can see from the example of the Nordic countries and others, so the argument that women will be pushed out of the workforce is moot when leave is paid by the government because the opposite happens to be true.

Also, show us a link to the info that 700 businesses are closing because of PML.
Businesses should benefit from PML when it’s funded by the govt because generally the women they have trained will come back.

I agree that we need to encourage a reduction in world population. That’s why the baby bonus needs to go and replaced by PML. The baby bonus encourages irresponsible behaviour such as teens having babies.
Give them contraception instead.

Responsible, working, taxpaying women should not be punished and need to be compensated for loss of their income.

Continued

Col,
Women should not have to miss out on their wages because, married or not, it still makes the woman financially dependent on her partner’s income. Why should a person have to become totally dependent on a partner, in this case, just because of biological differences?
I don’t consider this an argument about socialism or capitalism, left or right, Liberal or Labor. We need something different. This is, in my view, an issue about stopping discrimination and acknowledging equal rights in a caring society. It's also about child wellbeing.

BTW people, society does consist of people like a house consists of bricks. Without the individual bricks there wouldn’t be a house, but without a purpose to build a house the bricks are useless. Both are necessary and equally important so they should be supporting each other or the whole structure will come down.

Speaking of bricks and mortar, housing affordability is now so low that most working people simply have to have a dual income to be able to afford to live somewhere decent.
I heard on the radio that workers who fall in the wage range of around $50,000 p.a. such as nurses can only afford to buy in 5% of the housing market and rents have been increasing to very high levels, too.

Many people on one income cannot afford to live in an area near work, which puts more pressure on their family because they lose more time commuting. More pressure also on public transport and traffic, and more pollution too.

Celivia
Thank you very much! Are you from Adelaide Hills? (only a simple question). Neoconservatives does not care at all for the societies but only for individuals. If you see to speak very much for societies, communities etc it does not mean I ignore the individuals but I try to tell Col Rouge individuals depend on their society and society from its individuals. The best conditions for a society and its individual members is when there are the minimum conflicts between the society and individuals and when there is the minimum inequality, conflicts between the members of a society, between its individuals.
Celivia THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND UNDERSTANDING.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
36% of South Australian women are casual, when their employers find that they are pregnant they stopped them as they are casual. Do you think theses women become pregnant for the money? Do you think casual and part time women are lazy or became pregnant for the maternity leave? they are not lazy and they was working for long time until their employer stopped them.
About the girls who have never worked, many of them are students who are preparing for their future work. What is better for the employers, a 30 years old woman with children or without children? Employers prefer mothers than women who will interrupt their job later.
THERE ARE NOT REALLY MANY IRRESPONSIBLE, LAZY MOTHERS, BUT EVEN THE LAZY AND IRRESPONSIBLE MOTHERS NEED SOME KIND FROM ASSIST. Most of the people who support the paid maternity leave want the non working mothers to receive the baby bonus. I AGREE WITH THEM. WHEN HOWARD GOVERNMENT GAVE BABY BONUS TO ALL MOTHER YOU DID NOT TELL ANYTHING NOW YOU CHANGE MIND? All mothers have place in this country.
People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
Many, many thousands of migrants come in Australia every year because we need more and more working hands. Instead to bring migrants it is better to have our local people! Do you disagree with it?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Celevia “Why should a person have to become totally dependent on a partner, in this case, just because of biological differences?”

Well the simple answer is, don’t get married and don’t have kids.

No woman or man is forced into marriage but any woman and any man who thinks the “my-money versus your money” system of domestic budgeting is the path to domestic bliss is a fool.

The whole point of my post has been and I repeat it,

“he” and / or / versus “she” no longer exist,

“He” and “she” are replaced by “a couple”

Any commitment less than that makes a sham of the institution of marriage.

I fail to understand what is so difficult for you to comprehend what I mean, to me it is as obvious as the reproductive tackle of a male greyhound.

“I don’t consider this an argument about socialism or capitalism, left or right, Liberal or Labor.”

Me neither, it is far more fundamental than that.

When I got married, I went into it on the basis of “all for one and one for all”, a total commitment with my partner where individual careers and aspirations were subordinate to the “joint good” and the joint life quality.

I never entered into marriage on the basis “what is your is ours and what is mine is my own”, which is what you are promoting with this debate about a woman’s right not to give up her work.

“society does consist of people like a house consists of bricks”

Well if I want the life style of a brick, I will sign up for your sort of society.
Actually, the commonest analogy is the ant hill

All working together for the common good and the future of the colony.

Likewise, I aspire to experience things greater than those expected from a mere ant.

Its that old “free-will” thing.

Ants and bricks both lack it, humans have got buckets of it and some of us want to exercise it.

Free-will comes down to the difference between existing and living.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
Many, many thousands of migrants come in Australia every year because we need more and more working hands. Instead to bring migrants it is better to have our local people! Do you disagree with it?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

In my opinion we are far better off bring SKILLED migrants into the country than to encourage our miss-fit youth to have children of thier own just for money.

I also belive, and I am generalising here, that as a society we are raising limp wristed panzies as oppossed to the men we raised a few generations ago. All we are doing is encouraging two missfits to have another miss-fit or two. It's a joke, but then we knew that.

Another problem is that society for decades has rewarded the weak and forgotten the strong.

Take a bully at school. He goes to school, plays havok on the teacher all day, does practicly nothing all day but! he gets a 'good behavour certificate' just becasue he didn't bully anyone today. The well behaved, hard working kids get little recognition for thier efforts.

Anyhow, I'm off track again but god help us if our country gets attacted and we have to rely on generation X for our survival.

As for your comment on 'it's the government who will foot the bill'

They can't even run our hospitals, water, roads ect so how on earth can they run this scheme.

I say again, be very carefull what you wish for as the fall out may bite you in the but!

Col Rouge
"The only purpose of “society” is to support the individuals who comprise it"
haha! at the end you found the society and its only purpose is to support the individuals! What about the pregnant women, the individual pregnant women? What about the babies, the real, individual babies?
How a society could support the individuals when individuals avoid to support the society?
Col Rouge
"no society has a “dream”" What is the American dream? Why most Australians dream the ourteam to win the most gold metals in next Olympic games? Do you think the conservatives will win in the next elections or only they dream it? Many dreams from many societies, from many communities etc.
"a selfish bastard you really are" Usually you are more careful and control yourself. It is not for me personally, but for Australian mothers, for Australian children, for Australia!
"What you support is a system which ultimately leads to the horrors of a Lenin or a Stalin"
What do you say Col Rouge? Stalin and Lenin have more common with neoconservatives and corporations than with me! All of them ignore, underestimate and violate people's rights, all of them prefer to promote their interests with the stick than with democracy. If ever they speak or follow the democratic roles they do it when they have no other choice. Do you see corporation's relations with communist china? with Cuba's communists? Why do you close your eyes when one after the other all American corporations start business in China?
I WANT FROM YOU TO BE A BRAVE AND HONEST MAN, I DO NOT SAY THAT ALWAYS I HAVE RIGHT, I DO NOT SAY THAT YOU ALWAYS ARE WRONG, I AM HAPPY WHEN I FIND YOU ARE RIGHT AND I SHOW IT PUBLICLY.
I SUSPECT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW USEFUL IS PAID MATERNITY-PARENTAL LEAVE BUT YOU AVOID TO RECOGNIZE IT PUBLICLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE TO SHOW THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

rehctub
You are not racist! you want to benefit from migrants, I understand that but employers, any employer must respect the basic rights of migrants and do not discriminate against them.
DO YOU KNOW THAT WORLDWIDE THE LEFT PARTIES, MOST EMPLOYERS,MANY UNIONS AND WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE AGREE FOR MORE MIGRANTS BUT THE RIGHT PARTIES, LESS EDUCATED PEOPLE AND MOST OF THE UNIONS DISAGREE FOR MORE MIGRANTS?
I AGREE WITH YOU UNDER ONE CONDITION: NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MIGRANTS!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

You can't cherry-pick, Celivia.

>>As I explained before, women’s participation in the workforce becomes greater wherever PLM (paid maternity leave) exists, as we can see from the example of the Nordic countries and others, so the argument that women will be pushed out of the workforce is moot when leave is paid by the government because the opposite happens to be true.<<

Unfortunately, these luxuries go hand-in-glove with Nordic-style taxation. I for one don't believe the Australian public are ready for that level of involvement of the state in their lives, nor that level impact on their hip-pockets.

We as a country have chosen to keep the government at a certain distance, and are taxed accordingly.

My challenge still stands. If a political party believes that this level of intervention is what the public wants, they should say so, honestly and clearly, in their election manifesto. The reason they don't do this is because they know how the Australian public will respond.

Unfortunately, because politicians are card-carrying cowards, the only way this legislation will occur is through stealth and dishonesty, and outside the democratic process whereby the parliament is the servant of the people.

Did some OLOers simply drop onto planet earth as fully formed adults? That must be the explanation. Because they sure didn’t have parents who sacrificed much of their lives and livelihoods for them.

Having children is fact of life; NOT luxury.

Parental Leave offers the following benefits:

• Enables parents to spend time bonding with their children
• Retains links with workplace and facilitates return to workforce
• Children gain benefits of long term breastfeeding (this is not as straight forward and easy as some would think).
• It is vital for mothers to look after their babies for the first few months and for babies to have intimate care for at least 12 months.
• The economy benefits if parents are able to maintain their skills and also the employer benefits by not having to train and find new staff.
• That government assists as paid parental leave leads to discrimination against women and parents in the workforce.

Therefore, assistance that encourages people back into the workforce has benefits for the economy as a whole, assuming that it is a worthwhile objective to have more people working. Any arguments here?

Further economic benefits (seeing as this is the only thing SOME people understand) are, women will pay more tax and increase their own super funds. This also establishes a pattern of work that children will follow their parents into the workforce, rather than remain welfare dependent.

Both government and potential parents could contribute to a Maternity Benefit Fund – along the lines of our super funds. On a voluntary basis, men and women, planning for children, could contribute to this fund in early working life. Taking the pressure off employers, contributions could be matched by the Federal Government.

Hey CELIVIA and ANTONIUS

Thought you should know that Col is quite capable of going ‘socialist’ if he directly benefits, see below:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1859#37221

“…….. I recently bought another car and had it immediately converted to LPG, all on the government.”

Modest isn’t he? Not the slightest bit interested in giving ALL children the best possible start in life, just wants to save money on fuel. If he was really concerned about environmental sustainability you’d think he’d buy a hybrid.

Col, a single tree does not a forest make.

PALE – you receive funding from the Queensland government via the RSPCA and I do believe that Wendy herself is in receipt of welfare benefits. Or was.

Either way, there is clearly a load of hypocrisy when people are happy to insert their own snouts into the trough for personal advantage, but deny opportunities for a good start in live for our most dependent people – children.

REHCTUB

Just repeating that someone is wrong over and over doesn’t make it so. You need to supply some evidence why preventing more women from joining and continuing to contribute to the work force is bad economics.

Women who work pay taxes, taxes pay for government services, government service benefit everyone, including Col Rouge as he has demonstrated above.

Everyone wins

Made a little mistake

Final point in first post should read:

"• That government assists as employers who pay parental leave leads to discrimination against women and parents in the workforce."

:-D

Fractelle “Col, a single tree does not a forest make.”

I realise you have affinity with vegetation Fractelle but the world is a wondrous place.

It is not all forests and trees for you to hug. There are vast open spaces (you might be familiar with them too (spaced out), oceans, rolling hills, cities.

Whilst it is true that a single tree does not a forest make,

I have never seen a forest made out of anything other than individual trees, some like great oaks, some willows, birch, red and blue gum, finer trees too living between the colossus of the forest.

Now if you want a good forest, you are better off accepting the diversity of the trees and stop demanding that only one type is allowed to grow and only to a precise height.

What you fail to understand Fractelle is

Strength is achieved through diversity, not through uniformity,

All you preach is the belief that we should only be allowed to be equal.

Where the Oak and Yew are constrained, as if with bonsai and forbidden to grow beyond the height prescribed by the socialist levellers.

Diversity produces people of different heights, different abilities and different attributes too.

I will always fight for diversity against the interests of those who demand, like Fractelle, the socialist levellers uniformity which has only ever produced a sick and dying society.

“Not the slightest bit interested in giving ALL”

Actually, I have to pay a tax bill due under one of my 2006/07 returns, even with a couple of companies, one running at a loss at present, I still do my bit and ensure I am “giving ALL” my duly assessed taxes.

A net taxpayer has dignity, a net tax beneficiary is at the mercy of the state.

As for hybrids, the extra energy required to produce the additional machine engineered components consume massive amounts of energy at the factory end of the production process.

The hybrids are sold as a fashion statement, they are not economically competitive but give the appearance that car companies are doing something

Col Rouge
"Diversity produces people of different heights, different abilities and different attributes too" There is an thread about racial diversity, go and tell them for the benefits of any diversity.
No one said that individuals do not exist, no one says that any society exists from ghosts and not from real, individual persons.
What I try to tell you is that humans are social persons, they live in societies, they produce, create in societies, HUMAN KIND DID WHAT IT DID BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SOCIAL PERSONS, NOT SIMPLE INDIVIDUALS. When we support the women and children with paid maternity, paternity, paternal leave simultaneously we support, benefit our society.The benefits from the PML spread direct to their close environment, family members of the women and children or indirect to our society with various ways as more productivity for employers, healthier children, happier parents, more successful children, more understanding, more democracy more love for the country etc. All these and much more benefit not only the society as a whole but less or more each individual of the society. YOU GRANT CHILDREN WILL LIVE IN A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU AS INDIVIDUAL GRANDFATHER!
Is it so difficult to understand that the activities, behavior, needs, ideas, etc from any individual effects, less or more, good or bad other individuals?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios,
No I’m not from your area, I live in Sydney.
As you know, I agree with you on most things but I don’t think that the baby bonus is a good idea. A big lump sum encourages teenagers to have babies before they’ve had an education or been in the workforce. Here, I’d rather agree with Col that a coupon/voucher system, if necessary, would be a better provision for the child. We need mothers back into the work force; we don’t need to invite adolescents to go on welfare.
Col,
I get your point about marriage but I am not trying to say that the incomes of a couple should be separated into different accounts. In fact, my husband and I have had a joint account ever since we moved in together before we even got married. We share everything, a business and investments, too.
I’m trying to say that a family’s income does not rely on one partner’s contribution only, both contributions are equally important.
Your freedom argument is a strong one, I struggle with that myself as I think that socialism is not the answer (I’d hate to be an ant), but neither is capitalism. Both infringe on the freedom of people, they just target different groups.
All I know is that we need a caring and more efficient, smaller government, caring people and a fair go for everyone, including parents and especially basic needs for all children.
As you said so yourself, you are not against using govt incentives. While LPG is a good idea, so is paid maternity leave.

Pericles,
I agree with what you are saying about deceit and democracy and if I had to cherry pick one argument against PML it would be that one.
Still, I wouldn’t want to see some kind of example made of PML in an attempt to save the face of democracy- there are more things that move in by stealth.
The WTO is hardly open or democratic in nature, either.

Continued.

Pericles, you said, “The reason they don't do this is because they know how the Australian public will respond.”
But, on 20 May 2008, Antonios provided the following article:
http://tinyurl.com/55olkp
“James Heckman's analysis (2006) demonstrates the economic dividends of early quality parental care (including through measures like paid maternity leave) that result in long term savings for governments “
And,
”A representative news poll … shows a high level of support for PML …”
If Heckman is correct about long-term savings, then it’s reasonable to believe that the public would be in favour of PML.

Also, if paid maternity leave is such a bad idea that wouldn’t fit in with the Australian tax system, then why have the HREOC, the ACTU and the Australian Industry Group all called for taxpayer-funded paid maternity leave? They all agree that paid maternity leave is not only vital for working families but also for our economy.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/2008/38_08.html

Fractelle,
Welcome to this lengthy debate and thanks for outlining the benefits of parental leave.
I agree, paid maternity/parental leave, which is the recognition of equality of both parents is not luxury. Motherhood reflects on superannuation and income while fatherhood does not.
I don’t know whether you’ve read all of the posts, but Antonios said in a previous post, ”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.” I agree.

” Both government and potential parents could contribute to a Maternity Benefit Fund”
Yes, not a bad idea and worthy of consideration. If you read my post of 27 May, I have written something similar there which may interest you.

Celivia,

>>A representative news poll … shows a high level of support for PML<<

with the greatest respect, when "a stratified random sample of 1202 respondents aged 18 years and over" are asked a survey question, they are not being asked to vote for it, just offer their opinion.

Take a look at the way the questions were phrased. Every one of them was shaped towards a warm-and-fuzzy response:

"In principle, are you personally in favour or against all working women in Australia having access to some type of paid maternity leave?"

A warm-and fuzzy response, incidentally, that costs the respondent precisely nothing. Even the "who pays" question was a no-brainer:

"..tell me if you personally would be in favour or against this way of funding a paid maternity leave scheme

* It being funded by all Australian employers
* It being funded by all Australian workers
* Funding being shared between Australian employers and workers
* Funding being shared between Australian employers, workers, and the Federal government"

Of course the majority will answer the last. It involves the least amount of brainpower, and sounds "fair".

When (or if, in this case) you have to offer the position to the public as an election platform, you would be obliged to explain who pays, and how much.

Mr Rudd fudged the question beautifully during the election campaign, providing the perfect bureaucrat position:

"If elected I will ask the Productivity Commission to examine the effectiveness of different models to improve support for parents in the labour force with new born children"

Exquisite. No commitment, no responsibility, no costings, no transparency. Hand it to "the committee", and then claim that "well, you voted for it."

Both government and potential parents could contribute to a Maternity Benefit Fund – along the lines of our super funds. On a voluntary basis, men and women, planning for children, could contribute to this fund in early working life. Taking the pressure off employers, contributions could be matched by the Federal Government.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 11:30:58 AM

Ha-Ha-Ha, so what planet do you live on darl, cause your suggestion that future parents (employees) will put away for a rainy day is utter utter crap!

You see we live in an entirely different world now and to suggest that the young ones today follow in the foot steps of their parents is total BS.

Many of them work less than 5 days per week, spend evry cent they earn (often well before next pay day) and, once they allow for their pre-mix drinks, booze, mobile phone bill and party money have so little left that most of them can't afford to leave the nest let alone look forwards to buying their own nest some day. Hardley what I would call 'following in dad's footsteps hey'!

As for evidence on the effects of these laws if passed I take heed of your comments and simply say, KEEP WATCHING.

I hope I am wrong!

“is an thread about racial diversity, go and tell them for the benefits of any diversity.”

Any one who values diversity accepts others as he finds them, like I accept your right to be wrong.

Racially, we will all end up looking like Brazilians, who have been at the forefront of racial assimilation between Caucasians, negroes and Indians for about 200 years and I think that is a fine thing.

“HUMAN KIND DID WHAT IT DID BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SOCIAL PERSONS, NOT SIMPLE INDIVIDUALS.”

Individuals are social by choice, and decide how ‘social’ they will be.

All the significant and many insignificant events in history, were motivated / inspired / initiated by individuals who convinced and lead others into believing or accepting their view or adopting their inventions or discoveries.

PML is a feeble attempt to level the differentials of income artificially and will produce no meaningful benefit, it will only make finding a job more difficult for women of child bearing age.

Celivia “Both infringe on the freedom of people”

I fail to see how a free-market system infringes on peoples freedom?

You are not forced to buy from a single source when there are multiple vendors in a market and the competition between those vendors encourages better service, keener prices and greater innovation, all of which benefits the consumer.

I recognize and acknowledge the important value of anti-monopoly and anti trust legislation, the work of ACCC and the US FTC. They are valuable regulatory functions, necessarily managed and funded by government levied taxes, because they help resist the nature of market dominance and domination (monopolies).

“Your freedom argument is a strong one”
Thank you I think so.

“you are not against using govt incentives.”

I claim all possible tax allowances and expenses too.

I would be a fool to forego a monetary benefit when I have historically been levied the taxes from which the incentive will be paid.

However, the direct fuel price saving from LPG, which I have benefit from of $60-$80 a week means the $2,000 LPG rebate is a minor benefit in the calculation.

Fractelle, welcome!
I wrote many times on this thread about the PML you know about, I do not think you will read something new from me.
Simple, we, voted ALP because we have liked its program, because we liked its promises for a better future, because we trusted it. One from its TOP priorities was and is the PLM. All countries rich and poor, developed and non develop, small or big pay maternity leave, Australia and USA are the ONLY countries in the world which do not pay maternity leave, in USA many States pay maternity leave, that means In really our country is THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHICH DO NOT PAY MATERNITY LEAVE IN FEDERAL OR STATE LEVEL.
With the word MATERNITY LEAVE we used to mean two different things, maternity leave or maternity, paternity and parental leave.
These benefits are useful and necessary for the pregnant, for the child, for the mother, for the woman, for the father, the man and our society. The most important from them is the parental leave as it assist the women, the mothers to improve their position in their profession because it assist for shared child care between mothers and fathers.
There are various models of PLM in some countries pay the government in others the employers, in others mainly government plus employer.
In some countries the paid Maternity leave is very long, close to two years and in others shorter. In some countries the paid paternity leave (take the father while the mother is in maternity leave)is three months and in others less, in some countries the paid parental leave is longer and for more years and in other countries shorter and for less years. The minimum paid maternity leave according to international convention is 14 weeks.
The ALP government asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. The Productivity Commission was accepting submissions up until 2 June. The Commission is to report by February 2009.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Celivia
"Here, I’d rather agree with Col that a coupon/voucher system, if necessary, would be a better provision for the child"
I do not disagree with the coupon/voucher system. When we have immature, irresponsible parents then this system is the best one, I do not know if the social security use the coupon/voucher system but sure it is the ONLY one which could be useful for the child, in many cases.
"socialism is not the answer"
Celivia the word socialism has different meanings for the left or right people in one country or from country to country.
In South Europe Greece, Italy, France, Portuguese and Belgium the progressive, political parties called socialist. In Anglo Saxon world the progressive political parties called Labor and in north Europe social democratic. All this party belong to the same FAMILY, in "The Socialist International"

XXIII Congress of the Socialist International, Athens
30 June-02 July 2008

It will address four key issues which are at the heart of the worldwide social democratic movement today and at the centre of the international community’s concerns: climate change, peace and the resolution of conflicts, the world economy and the question of migration.

The Congress, hosted by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, Pasok, the Greek member party of the organisation, will gather some 600 delegates, including party leaders, among them some heads of government and Presidents of Republics, ministers, parliamentarians, and party representatives from over 140 countries around the world, as well as invited guests.

The Congress, the highest decision-making body of the organisation, will set the political priorities and strategies for the period ahead, and will admit new members and elect the authorities of the International.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles
I read many programs of political parties in many countries, no one of them gave the details you want to know. If the political parties try to give the details you want, then they had to write many, many books which no one could read.
The programs of political parties put the basic goals, the priorities. Howard's workchoice law was more than 500 pages, did you expect the liberal Party to give all these details in its program? No, we knew from few words what they mean. In the same way we new what the ALP mean when promised PML, Sure not less from the minimum of the International convention and something according to Australian's standards and its international position. We are not Uganda! something better, may be something similar with the PML in Scandinavian Countries!
Pericles I think you want the ALP to forget its promises, to ignore its voters, and follows Liberals program!
We voted ALP for its program, for its promises for PML etc and we expect from it not to betray us!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Many thanks, ASymeonakis, for making the position crystal clear, and proving my point beyond the merest shadow of doubt.

>>I read many programs of political parties in many countries, no one of them gave the details you want to know.<<

That explains, perfectly and without the need for further illumination, how this situation came about:

>>Australia and United States are the only countries do not offer paid maternity leave. Really, I can not understand how other countries, small or big, poor or rich, developed or not developed can pay maternity leave and Australia can not!<<

Or, put another way, and using the information you have provided, none of the countries who have managed to impose these laws have ever given their citizens an opportunity to vote on it.

No-one said it was difficult to do. I merely point out that it is unethical and undemocratic to do it this way. And the fact remains that "everyone else does it" has never been an excuse.

As I have mentioned before, I have no doubt we will go the same way. But without the scrutiny that only the electorate can provide, we will end up with an expensive, unsatisfactory system that is open to rorts in a major way.

That's the way we do things around here, unfortunately.

Hi all

On the whole (and I admit that this thread has gone a bit beyond my comprehension of some of the issues), I'm a bit inclined to agree that it is really up to those who want to be parents to support their children. Be it by way of a scheme similar to superannuation, then that's fine. Fundamentally, I do not see it as my responsibility to support other people's children.

That leaves us with the problems as described by rehctub though. We have an incentive system, paid for by the taxpayer, in which people who have never worked and quite likely never will, having children for cash bonuses, and society then pays for those children's' support until they go on to their own income support". These people are in fact never called upon to provide for their own children, yet some of these households have a higher income than mine!

Yet, having worked all our lives, an age pension, when we get to that point, may well be a thing of the past.

I can't see how that does the country any good at all in terms of productivity or social advantage. Sorry, Antonios, but I have just seen so much of it!

Nicky

Pericles,
You have shown good reasons to bin that particular news poll.
But the invalidity of that poll doesn’t end the argument because if Heckman’s analysis is correct in where he shows that PML will save money for the government, then I can’t imagine the public would oppose PML.
I haven’t come across any reviews of his analyses by other economists/experts in this area, and I have not seen statements by economists that PML provided by the government will damage the economy.

Since I have no vested interest, (I wouldn’t want a 3rd child even if they paid me a billion $), but I want to look at all the perspectives.
That I happen to be in favour of PML is because I find that positives outbalance negatives.
And Antonios has a point that we can expect Labor to do Laborish things, like introduce PML, even if the public were given only a vague plan and were not shown the exact details.
If PML benefits all parties and is good for the economy, then why would the public be against it? Even greedy companies like Woolworths see the benefits of PML and spread their view around.

Nicky,
everybody’s personal experiences naturally influence their opinion so I do understand your perspective.
But you (and Rehctub) link chronic welfare recipients to PML and that is not correct.
I don’t mind if you are against PML but then you should be against it for the valid reasons like Col and Pericles, not because of a misunderstanding.
I reiterate that PML, unlike the baby bonus, supports only mothers who were previously working and paying tax, and will return to the workforce. It has nothing to do with families who have a history of being on welfare.

Well cared for children will likely grow into responsible adults and even childless people will benefit from having less irresponsible teens and adults in their communities.

Col and Antonios, not ignoring you but I only had time for one post till the weekend.

Celvia, rehctub here.

With the greatest of respect I think you miss undestand my point.

I don't link maternaty leave with wellfare it is just that I see this as yet another hand in the cookie jar and there are just not enough cookies to go around.

I repectfully ask that you actively observe some of our seniors. Not the ones sitting at the pokies all day, but the ones trying to survive on what amounts to the equivilent dollars we spend on a good night out and this has to last them a whole week.

These are people who have work all their lives, paid taxes, raised families and are now left to rot.

The system just can't afford any more hand-outs and, if it can why not support these folk instead. God knows I think they have earned it don't you?

You see people today struggle for all the wrong reasons. Second car, rental property/share portfolio, mobile phone bill, big screen TV (on hock), OS holidays, the list goes on.

It would be great to think that we could all get help with our kids but the reallity is if you can't afford them the DON'T-HAVE-THEM!

YOUR KIDS-YOUR CHOICE-YOUR RESPOSIBLE FOR THEM AND THEIR NEEDS.

Hi again all

Just a quick one because I am pushed for time too.

Celevia, with the greatest respect, can you see any government having the guts to make that sort of distinction? Maybe the idea someone came up with - of those who know they want to be/will be parents should contribute something along the lines of a superannuation program with the government making some form of contribution as well, because as things are, people who are on welfare are far better off when they have loads of children. That's the only way I can see such an idea working to favour those who deserve, and need it.

Cheers
Nicky

Antonios,
you are correct that the word ‘socialism’ has different meanings. I think that many progressive countries use some principles (probably the main ones) of socialism and some of other political directions. I’m not sure about every individual country but I believe some pick what they think is the best of several worlds. ‘Pure’ communism, socialism, or libertarianism does not seem to work, or even exist- but being creative with existing ideas might make a better system. How free can a country be if it has to always stick to certain principles no matter what? Any fair system needs to focus on and support people first.

Col,
About LPG, my husband drives at least 100-150 km daily. Although LPG prices have increased driving on LPG is, as you said, still worthwhile.
But I don’t see why individuals (and corporations) have no problem accepting government subsidies to benefit their own desires, e.g. as drivers, when they are against introducing help for others, e.g. for working mothers. I don’t ‘get’ where the cut-off line is; when do subsidies become acceptable?

About freedom/free markets, I agree that there are many positives of a having them, but I don’t believe that they exist because aren’t markets always constructed and have rules and regulations? How much input do poor countries really have and do the richer countries therefore have more freedom of choice and rules than the poorer?

Corporations advocating a free market can (and have) accept state/govt interference and financial support from taxpayers’ money and this is inconsistent.
Why should individuals have to do without financial support while the govt is still serving the corporate world? How accountable are corporations?
And, people don’t ‘really’ have freedom of choice when there is much coercion by corporations and pressure by the media to buy certain products.
I doubt that poor countries benefit as much as wealthy countries from globalisation because there’s unequal power and input.
Anyway, this is quite off-topic, perhaps I shouldn’t have sidetracked it. It would make an interesting topic elsewhere so I’ll keep my eyes open for any future thread about it.

Continued

Nicky,
Glad you could find the time to reply. I’m happy to agree on the idea of people making contributions to some kind of fund along the lines of the superannuation fund.
Although, to keep such fund limited for the use of parental leave won’t be very desirable but when such fund can be set up in a wider frame so that any justified time off work can be paid from that fund (or paid out as an addition to superannuation near time of retirement when not used for other purposes), I can’t see why it should not be viable.
Seems that most of us have agreed on the vouchers/coupons, too.

Rehctub,
I agree with you that the pension of the seniors is disgraceful, but isn’t that all the more reason to prevent poverty among pensioners? A family, but also the future taxpayer, is better off when the mother’s income and superannuation during her time off to give birth and care for her baby is maintained.
If mothers can maintain superannuation, like fathers can, our future pensioners will be better equipped to look after themselves while their children, coming from a working family, will have had good role models and did not have to grow up in poverty. It’s likely that they’ll become working taxpayers, too.

Otherwise, have you thought about who will look after all these childless, elderly people in the future? Who will keep filling up the cookies in the cookie jar?
We need to reduce our population gradually, but not by starving our elderly, and neither by financially bullying people into giving up their dream of starting a family.
Stop the average earner from having a family and we will end up with a majority of elderly who won’t have support from their own children (because they couldn’t afford any) and who therefore financially and physically rely on the overworked and overtaxed children of others.

Rehctub, Celivia
There is a big problem with the pension of the seniors and this problem will become even bigger if we do not solve it.
While in the past every pensioner was supported from 5 0r 6 employees now we have 1 employee for each pensioner. This happened for the following reasons:
1. After the 2nd world war we had a big number of childbirths, all these people are pensioners or close to become pensioners.
2. Last decades the childbirths reduced in high degree and we are lucky because we have the migrants and the system continue without big problems, BUT ONLY OF CAUSE THE MIGRANTS.
3. In our days people live much longer, now every employee NOT ONLY must work for a pensioner, but he/she must work for him/her for 20-30 years! As the medicine and conditions improved the people will live more years. that mean each future employee will have to work for longer time for the pensioners!
THIS PROBLEM APPEARS MAINLY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, INCLUDING AUSTRALIA, BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED NUMBER OF CHILDBIRTHS AND WE LIVE MUCH LONGER COMPARING WITH PEOPLE IN NON DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
Australia and other developed countries MUST continue to increase their population if they want to keep their basic life standards, if they want to avoid big problems in their societies.

Celivia,
Thank you for all, you are very good! square brain, practical mind, moderate person. At begin I thought you was working around the Human Rights Commission but they have no idea from Health and Safety Committees, later that you had a connection with the Union Movement but you had no idea about the Unions position for the maternity leave. May be you have same relations with the Industrial relations, I do not know BUT I KNOW VERY WELL THAT YOU ARE A VERY POSITIVE PERSON AND I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ME, (MY IDEAS) IN THE FUTURE!
Thank you.

continue
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

continue

Rehctub,
It is true that I did not agree with you because you wrote mainly if not all times for money and always you took employers site. BUT I found that you wrote twice or more times for pensioners problems and I think your interest for pensioners is genuine. If you have any thoughts, any ideas about pensioners problems, open a thread or ask me what ever you want from me and probably I will support you.
About the PML THE RIGHT THING IS THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE BASICS, EMPLOYERS TO THE AVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES VOLUNTARY. If every where employers can pay for the PML then you can pay too.
The truth is that in Australia the corporations belong to foreigners in higher degree than in any other country and the Multinational companies do not pay taxes at all or they pay very little, that mean:
1. Employees and small-medium size businesses pay the taxes in Australia and
2. Small-medium size businesses have bigger problems of cause multinational company's than in other countries.

instead to turn your arrow against your employees try to see what you can do, (I think you will have your employee's support) to minimize the problems of cause the multinationals companies. Your problems caused from them and not from your employees.

I agree with you for more skilled migrant workers but not with temporary visa of cause the huge discrimination against them.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Thank you, Antonios, you are too kind.
I only wish I had the skills to work for the Human Rights Commission but I’m simply a mother working from our home office in our own company. My background is in the Netherlands where I taught Dutch as a second language to immigrant and refugee children at a primary school in a disadvantaged area of Amsterdam.
I have also worked part time in aged care and have much respect and affection for the elderly.
Unfortunately, I’m only a Jack of some trades and master of none, but I do care about people especially children, pensioners, and about animal rights, too.

Thank you for outlining the problems with pensions. Although I knew that the greying of the population is a big problem, I didn’t know that the proportion of seniors : taxpayers is 1 : 1, the problem is more serious than I guessed.
I’m glad that the govt introduced superannuation when it did, and I believe that something similar needs to be done for people’s other life changes.

The govt often fails to anticipate long-term consequences. How are they going to solve the problem we are facing in the near future about attracting enough staff to physically care for the elderly? It will be difficult; especially on the low wages they’re willing to pay carers.
Children and grandchildren will have to take on the care for their elderly parents/grandparents when professional carers will be scarce. That’s why the government needs to organise generous savings incentives similar to superannuation funds so that working people can get some paid time out to look after their elderly family members and/or to take time out to have a baby.

And yes, Antonios, I’m in favour of inviting skilled immigrants as well as refugees into Australia rather than bribe women to have more children because it is the world population that needs to be reduced, not merely the population in Australia

Antonius and Cevilia

I apologise for my few posts on this topic, but due to the nature of my illness I am frequently unable to respond to OLO as much as I would like.

You have both made important points regarding the need to care for all people in our community, irrespective of their status, be it child, immigrant or elderly.

The strength of any nation, local community or even a single family is always greater than the sum of its parts. The better we care for our children and enable them to grow and contribute in their turn benefits us all.

I am gobsmacked, that so many people will use government funding or rebates for themselves, but deny it to others. We all pay taxes and I would rather mine go towards people less fortunate than myself than to people who are already financially secure; the current Baby Bonus makes no distinction and really needs to be replaced by assistance when and for whom it is truly needed.

I am confident that Australia will become a more holistic nation than it has been for the past 11 years and realise that a healthy nation is inclusive of all its members, not just a privileged few.

Celivia “But I don’t see why individuals (and corporations) have no problem accepting government subsidies to benefit their own desires, e.g. as drivers, when they are against introducing help for others, e.g. for working mothers.”

You need to familiarize yourself with the judgments of Lord Chief Justice Denning, for matters of taxation and acceptance of grants.

Denning’s observation is that tax is an impost by the state against the individual.

Dennings declared a person has a right to minimize their liability using all legal means available to them.

Hence when a direct grant is offered for which I qualify, being a proper and responsible tax payer, I am legally entitled to miminise my net tax contribution under the law.

I did not make LPG grants legal, I was not asked if I wanted them or not, same way I have not been asked if I want solar panel rebates and grants but I might be entitled to apply for them too.

That LPG conversion grants exist and that I am entitled to take advantage of them is all the justification I need.

As for “paid maternity leave”

LPG grants are paid regardless of gender.

LPG grants are a reimbursement of the capital costs of conversion, paid maternity leave is being sought as a right, not a reimbursment.

“the govt is still serving the corporate world”
See my comments on corporate grants on article “The case for an Australian-made small second car” by Valerie Yule.

Personal Choice “coercion by corporations and pressure by the media to buy certain products.”

Ha… only the feeble minded would use that excuse. I have never followed the flock to buy anything because the media told me. I buy on the basis of value and exercise my choice based upon multiple competitive considerations which contribute to my definition of “value”

Fractelle “I am gobsmacked, that so many people will use government funding or rebates for themselves, but deny it to others.”

You are entitled to get your car converted too, so stop whining. I refer you to Denning too.

Fractelle,

' the current Baby Bonus makes no distinction and really needs to be replaced by assistance when and for whom it is truly needed.
'

Exactly, and paid maternity leave has the potential to be much, much worse! Once they get to full pay maternity leave (which is the final goal here), you'll end up with my example of the woman on $150k being paid full pay for six months to a year, when this money could be much better used for the genuinely needy.

All that really needs to be done is that a couple with children should be able to split their income for tax purposes, and encourage the working partner to pay into super for the non-working partner.

It will never happen though as the feminists really don't want to have any families deciding that it's best for them to have the man working full time and the mother at home full time. That would be a nightmare to them.

Usual Suspect
"full pay maternity leave .. for six months"
Paid Maternity leave is not the most important part of the system we discuss here. PML is necessary for the health of the pregnant-mother and the baby BUT we will not see big changes on it, because already the women have by law the maternity leave and last years they receive money as baby bonus instead as a right according to international convention.
What really is new, IT IS THE NEW ROLE FOR THE WORKING MAN AS FATHER AND A BALANCED CHILD CARE BETWEEN THE FATHER AND MOTHER.
We do not speak only for maternity leave BUT FOR PATERNITY AND MAINLY FOR PATERNAL LEAVE. FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CHILD CARE BETWEEN THE FATHER AND MOTHER.
We have seen the strong involvement from the sex commissioner on this issue because she try and I agree with her to promote the equality between women and men and she try to promote it by freeing time from the mothers-women for the child care and transfer responsibilities to fathers, men.
WITH THIS SYSTEM WE (PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE)TRY TO IMPROVE WOMEN'S POSITION IN THEIR WORK, TO CREATE BETTER CONDITIONS FOR WOMEN'S CARRIERS.
THIS IS THE NEW ELEMENT IN THE STORY, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE NEW STORY!

Celivia,
You have right the problem with seniors can not solve only with the superannuation, soon a big part of our population will be seniors, and is the only part which will continue fast growing, soon it will be over 25%-30% of our population. May be we have to create whole towns for seniors, if we want to minimize the costs and increase the services for them.
At the moment it seem the government underestimate this real big problem!
I wrote one pensioner for each employee, not for each taxpayer.
Thank you.

continue

continue

Fractelle
"the current Baby Bonus makes no distinction and really needs to be replaced"
There is a difference between bonus and right and especially a right from the international law, which is stronger from the state or federal law. We want Australia to sign the international convention for maternity, paternity, parental leave and inform the international body what specifically we will do. We are discussing about it.

Col Rouge

"I did not make LPG grants legal, I was not asked if I wanted them or not"
Do not worry something like that will happen with the PML etc!

"LPG grants are paid regardless of gender"
The whole philosophy of the new system is to stop the discrimination against mothers and pay parental leave to mothers or fathers "regardless of gender"

“the govt is still serving the corporate world”, check to find what taxes the corporations pay in Australia or worldwide. From zero taxes to very little taxes.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I agree with you that the pension of the seniors is disgraceful, but isn’t that all the more reason to prevent poverty among pensioners?

Cilvia
When these seniors commenced work as teens or young adults they paid income taxes, much in the way that we pay taxes now.

A portion of the taxes they paid was to be set aside for the provision of ‘a comfortable standard of living’ during their retirement .

What they weren’t told about was that during their working lives a large portion of this portion would fund future ‘hand outs’ like;
The dole, family assistance to low-income earners, the baby bonus, the family payment, the list goes on.

Now, in their retired years, many of them having worked all their lives, paid all their taxes are now facing poverty simply because there are so many ‘HAND OUTS’ that have been taken from the cookie jar.

NOW, as if we havn’t drained the jar enough, you want us, the future seniors of society to fund the lifestyle choices of the ones who choose to have children and want someone else to foot the bill while our present seniors live below the poverty line.

Enough is enough!

continued
Antonios Symeonakis
About the PML THE RIGHT THING IS THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE BASICS, EMPLOYERS TO THE AVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES VOLUNTARY.
You see employers don’t get paid like employees. We only get paid if we make a profit.

We often rely on employees for our profits as, if they don’t treat our customers correctly, our customers don’t come back. Employees, or most of them, get paid by the hour, we only get paid if the customer comes back.

In business, small business in particular, there are two ways to make money.
1. Increase your profit margins
This can be very difficult especially when consumers have so many shopping choices.
2. Decrease your expenses.
This is often the only way and, by asking employers to fund this PML you face the risk of job cuts because we the employers have to make a profit or the employees don’t have a job.

As for ways to ease the burden on seniors, I feel more flexibility on their allowable income would help. Many seniors are young at heart and quite capable of working 20 to 30 hours per week, not to mention highly skilled, yet, the current system does not allow them to work any more than 2 to 3 hours per week in most cases for fear of cuts to thier pension. Considering most awards call for a minimum 4 hour shift, this is out of the question.

In a nutshell I feel if they were allowed to supplement their pension we would all be better for it.

I hope your foray into the world of running your own business is going well, ASymeonakis. The fact that you have so much time on your hands to post on this forum is a little worrying in that context, but I'm sure you have it under control.

But I would strongly suggest that you don't base your business plans on wild speculation, such as this:

>>...check to find what taxes the corporations pay in Australia or worldwide. From zero taxes to very little taxes.<<

Here's a little education for you.

First, the tax office.

http://www.ato.gov.au/large/content.asp?doc=/Content/77914.htm&page=5

"Large businesses have a critical role in the revenue system, paying and withholding taxes, and contributing to and managing superannuation on behalf of employees<<

I propose you take a look at some od the numbers while you're there.

And then there's the Treasury:

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/07_Chapter_5-01.asp

Oh, look. Of the OECD top ten, Australia's business community pays the most. Who'd 'a thought it?

Then there's the Treasury task force view

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1304/PDF/01_Company_tax.pdf

They say stuff like

"since the 1980s, company tax collections have run ahead of gross operating surplus... company tax collections as a percentage of gross domestic product are high by international standards"

Yes, they do go on to qualify their observations with some other underlying trends, but overall give the lie to "zero taxes to very little taxes"

In business, ASymeonakis, it is critically important to i) get your facts right and ii) resist grandstanding on issues you clearly don't "get".

Normally I'd charge for such valuable advice, but on this occasion you can have it for free.

ASymeonakis “Do not worry something like that will happen with the PML etc!”

Not if common sense has a say in the matter.

“check to find what taxes the corporations pay in Australia or worldwide. From zero taxes to very little taxes.”

That is because you are measuring tax paid by corporations as a percentage of corporate revenue.
The only tax levied on corporate revenue is GST. Corporate income tax always has been levied on net operating result. Hence a business making a 10% operating profit to revenue and paying 30% income tax will appear to be paying only 3% of their gross revenue (and that is before we get into depreciation allowances, timing differences and accrual writebacks).

Of course a business can also make a loss and in those years no income tax is payable.

This is one of the more common lies which the socialist swill use for the purposes of wedge politics, shouting “unfair” to incite the wrath of those who pay personal income tax.

It is the consistency of approach to assessable income which also gives us “negative gearing”.

But as a self-employed business operator I am sure you are getting the best of advise in terms of your future tax management structures.

Personally, I have found dividend imputation an extremely useful devise for stabilising my personal tax rates between good and average operating result years.

Then we come to all the other taxes which businesses pay, stamp duties, payroll tax, land tax (all of which the state socialist swill were supposed to do away with when they got GST revenue).

So your claim is not only fallacious but a downright lie but the sort of cheap shot which I am used to from your side of the political divide.

I further echo the views of Pericles

UsualSuspect,
“feminists … it's best for them to have the man working full time and the mother at home full time”
What’s wrong with the idea that mothers and fathers should have equal economic, social, and political rights?
Once a baby is weaned there is no reason why both partners can’t combine a job and childcare. A modern workplace should be flexible enough to make it possible for both partners to work around a family.
Women, who want to return to the workforce, should be able to keep up their skills or it will be much harder for them to return to the workplace later.

BTW paid leave can be capped- I think the proposal is to pay minimum wages.

Rehctub,
“you want us, the future seniors of society to fund the lifestyle choices of the ones who choose to have children …”
No, you’ve missed reading some posts; we discussed different ways of funding paid leave.
To reiterate, I think is that it’s inevitable that Australia is going to catch up with the rest of the world with PML and later, Paid Parental Leave in the near future.
Economists have adviced that this will be good for our economy; I have not come across information by economists that it will harm the economy or families.
Why would I want to oppose an idea that not only works in almost all other countries, that is good for families and is good for the economy as well.

What I am not sure about is the best way to fund it; I’m not going to repeat it- read back for our thoughts on funding it.

Caring societies need to have effective safety nets or they’ll end up like corporate states like the collapsing USA. There, whole sections resemble the developing world and, I read, the economy has 3.2 million fewer jobs today than it did when George Bush took office.
Corporate States:

"The poor complain, they always do
But that's just idle chatter.
Our system brings rewards to all
At least, to all who matter."

- Gerry Helleiner

Continued

Australia neither needs to be a Socialist nor a Libertarian State, it needs to be a caring state where caring economics apply.

Col,
“LPG grants are paid regardless of gender.”
Parental leave is better than maternity leave and is also paid regardless of gender.

I do understand what you’re saying about grants vs. rights.
One does not exclude the other though- both have their place in a modern, wealthy country.

Thanks for addressing the rest, and I will when time allows, do a search on the good old Lord Chief Justice Denning. I don’t have much knowledge in that area, I must admit.

Just a quick note that we only have choices in what the corporate world decides they want to feed us. For example, the food industry. Try to find a box of cereal for a child that does not contain sugar. That’s what I mean, we might think we have free choice but choice is still limited. Anyway, it’s too far off topic here and I was just mentioning it as a side thought of interest.

People, I feel that for me this discussion has come to a close.
Only when on-topic, new points or views come up I will reply.
I have said why I am in favour of paid parental leave.
I have not made up my mind yet about the best way to fund it. I tend to not be in favour of having it funded by businesses because I don’t see how that would help a small business.
However, they are free to top up the minimum wage if they wish.

Thanks for this interesting thread and your compassionate posts, Antonios.

Celivia
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THIS IS MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD.
Pericles, Col Rouge I will avoid any discussion about multinational companies and big corporations in this thread because this is TOTALLY A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I WANT TO DISCUSS IT BUT IN OTHER THREAD AND NOT ONLY FOR CORPORATION'S TAXES BUT CORPORATIONS AND DEMOCRACY, CORPORATIONS AND POLITIC, CORPORATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, CORPORATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS, ETC.
Pericles I do not know what kind of business you have but may be we could cooperate on it. I am at begin and I do two jobs, one for the basics and the other to build up my business.
I AM REALLY BUSY

PLEASE DO NOT SENT ANY POST AS I WILL NOT RETURN BACK ON THIS THREAD.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

PML IS GOOD AND I FULLY SUPPORT IT!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

>>PLEASE DO NOT SENT ANY POST AS I WILL NOT RETURN BACK ON THIS THREAD<<

To be honest, you didn't do a great deal of listening when you were here, ASymeonakis, so my talking to the wall as I am at the moment isn't much of a change of scene for me.

But leaving is one thing.

Leaving with - not one, but two - parting shots, of eyewatering, breathtaking cheek is entirely another.

>>Pericles, Col Rouge I will avoid any discussion about multinational companies and big corporations in this thread because this is TOTALLY A DIFFERENT ISSUE<<

Ahem, errr, well you introduced the topic when you said, and I quote exactly:

>>“the govt is still serving the corporate world”, check to find what taxes the corporations pay in Australia or worldwide. From zero taxes to very little taxes.<<

And then there was this one.

>>Pericles I do not know what kind of business you have but may be we could cooperate on it<<

Now, I fully realize that this was written, ASymeonakis, with your tongue firmly in your cheek. And to be fair, it did cause me to laugh out loud, thankful that my coffee was safely out of range.

But I could fill a book, ASymeonakis, on the reasons why we could never cooperate in business, simply from reading your posts on this thread.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is to build a successful business from scratch, following all the principles you espouse from your Union handbook.

Including paid materity leave, natch.

But please forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

As small business close at 700 per month last I checked since the Rudd Government this ought to help I dont think.
Its really easy when you think about it. All the Aussies are heading off shore to be replaced by Um, what can I call it.
Never mind the QLD State Government were on the job yesterday telling people to be sure to take their holidays and sick leave. Again at the bosses expense.
They reckon they have to make up for the tourists some how. The poor old boss again.
Australia has the highest rate for unmarried mothers in the world. Great.
Now this leave has been considered also for ALL woman. That is regardless if they have ever worked or paid taxes.
Yup you would have to have rocks in your head to employ young people be it male or femlae. Still that ought to take care of the Governments push to keep people working until they are in their eightys. Yep that took care of the old age welfare checks.
It could only happen in Austraila. Still the oldiers always worked for years and paid taxes for all the welfare free hand outs to the bludgers.
They even paid to look after their own kids.
Amazing bunch really. Wonder what will happen to this country when the last poor old dear falls off their perch. Gee who knows maybe then they might let in our skilled meat workers instead of putting unreasonable conditions upon those bosses that no others have.
How would you like to be Julia. Wow with that transport mob and others breathing down her neck.
This country cant AFFORD raises we actually need people working on peace contracts or we will be worse off than USA in a few years.

Until then Aussies ( some) are happy allowing others to pay their THEIR having kids!

Our system brings rewards to all
At least, to all who matter."

- Gerry Helleiner
Posted by Celivia,

What a load of C--p

Back in the late 70's I commenced my full time employment as an apprentice.

It was common to hear words like "work hard son and you will be rewarded"

What they didn't realise is that someone would 'shift the goal posts'.

You see when you accumilate what is considered too many assetts you miss out on things such as; family assistance, health benifits, discounted services, the list goes on.

Now I must admit I have learned to live with this, along with the fact that I have to provide for my own retirement plans, but! what I don't accept is why I have to fund some elses choices.

As for the comment on how I find time to place threads on this site.

Well it just happens that I enjoy the interaction with other folk and while I work 7 days a week, often for weeks at a time, I don't read books or watch much tele.

So in all I manage to work about 80 hours per week. Enjoy the company of my wife of 24 years and my adult children, while, at the same time run a succesful business employing about 10 people.

All in all I would call that a fairly balanced life, one which allows time for all involved and, I don't want for much, can enjoy a dinner out with my wife and not worry about where the next dollar is comming from.

Now if that all seems a bit 'un-real' to you, then I guess i'm the luckiest guy on the planet hey!

Pericles
I was surprised when I learned about your last post. I did not expect it.
1.As far as I understood from your posts in this thread you never was interested about the maternity, paternity and parental leave, you was not interested for women, children or families BUT ONLY FOR THE COST OF PML.
2.You believe that people can not ask a council to fix a road if they do not know the actual cost for it. Is not it enough to tell how many car accidents happened there, how big is the cost for the community from the bad road? The government, the council will find the actual cost for the PML, for the hospital or the road. The citizens say what they want and for what reason they want it. NO ONE CAN NOT EXPECT FROM THE CITIZENS TO KNOW THE REAL COST FOR A ROAD, FOR A HOSPITAL OR FOR THE PML. Some persons prefer the citizens or employees silent, but these persons are not very familiar with our civilization.
3.I said you that “ I WANT TO DISCUSS IT (CORPORATIONS TAXES ) IN AN OTHER THREAD AND NOT ONLY FOR CORPORATION'S TAXES BUT CORPORATIONS AND DEMOCRACY, CORPORATIONS AND POLITICS, CORPORATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, CORPORATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS, ETC.” Why did not you start a thread about it? BE SURE I WILL BE THERE!. I will open a thread about CORPORATIONS but I need little time. You know I have no free time plus language problems.
4.About the business PERICLES WHAT DID YOU MEAN WITH YOUR QUESTION “would the government apply sanctions against employers who turn away applicants on the basis that they are of child-bearing age, and might therefore be more expensive to employ?” What do you think Pericles? What do you mean Pericles with “"employers associations" that have any semblance of understanding of small business”? Why Pericles ? What did you do to win employers association’s support?


Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,
Sorry, I do not know you but it seems that you come from an Asian country. This is not bad, we do not choice in which country we will born, but if you was from Europe you could not speak with this way for the PML. In Europe, mosts Australians come from Europe, the PML is a Fundamental Right. As we come from different countries and civilizations it is not easy to understand each other. Do not blame me, I am not racist, simple I am thinking and act as European. and if you want to learn the truth I AM WORRY VERY MUCH FOR EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY. Australia is a small country between billions of people with different civilizations. Last week the prime minister spoke for free trade and movement between Australia and Asian countries.
DO NOT WORRY IF THIS HAPPEN FORGET THE PML. GOOD FOR YOU LUCKY WOMAN!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles “To be honest, you didn't do a great deal of listening when you were here, ASymeonakis, so my talking to the wall as I am at the moment isn't much of a change of scene for me.”

Yes, it seemed the repetition of upper-case sentimental ideology has been passed off as ‘reason’.

Any way, in ASymeonakis case, declaring he has fallen on his sword can hardly be called a victory. That was of course, after taking a stab at corporate taxation, an arena where our valiant gladiator of socialism was unfamiliar and simply inventing straw men to stab at.

As for “corporate cooperation” – I guess Pericles would find the fundamental of “trust” would need to be pretty strong to make that work LOL but somehow I think likely to fail on the basis of incompatible business philosophies (practicality versus sentimentality).

PALEIF “As small business close at 700 per month”

Nothing new in that.

The failure rate of small business is always very high. It is simple, 90% fail within the first 3 years and 90% of those left fail within the next three years. If you have a small business trading after 5 years the consensus is you have a success. My “small business” has survived and thrived 20 years and I would suspect Pericles is similar.

I would suggest the only time the rate of small business failures will lower would be when fewer people were prepared to take a risk and that would only happen in a depression.

And the way this bunch of socialist swill are going they will bring that about (economic depression) before the end of this elected term, then claim they have improved the rate of small business closures.

As to the reason for failures. Most of them are caused because people do not think through their business objectives, processes and systems, a lot because they forget the tax man expects his pound of flesh and many because there is no one with a modicum of self discipline kicking them in the backside hard enough.

Pericles and Col seem to think that they are being asked to personally fund PML. They aren’t. There have been a number of proposals as to how PML may be funded – none of which would affect any individual’s choice of lifestyle – nor place a huge burden on small business. That all of these proposals have been completely ignored puts the lie into Pericles’ claim that it is Antonius who doesn’t listen.

As for Col, who indulges foetid invective and labelling of anyone who dares to disagree, you lose. If you cannot construct an erudite argument as to why children should not be given a fair start in life, you are wasting OLO readers’ valuable time.

Australian tax payers have contributed to our nation’s children since the introduction of the first maternity benefit in 1912- a benefit paid to married and unmarried mothers.

PML/PPL is a far more viable use of taxes than the current Baby Bonus - it ensures all Australian children get off to a decent start, meaning they are able to be breast fed, to feel loved and needed and have their developmental needs supported and enhanced by the full time love and care of a parent.

If Men Had Babies....

* Maternity leave would last two years....with full pay.

* There would be a cure for stretch marks.

* Natural childbirth would become obsolete.

* Morning sickness would rank as the nation's #1 health problem.

* All methods of birth control would be 100% effective.

* Children would be kept in the hospital until toilet trained.

* Men would be eager to talk about commitment.

* They wouldn't think twins were so cute.

* Sons would have to be home from dates by 10:00 PM.

* Briefcases would be used as nappy bags.

* Paternity suits would be a fashion line of clothes.

* Workplaces would be flexible for the employee and not just the employer.

* They'd stay in bed during the entire pregnancy.

* Women would rule the world.

Fractelle “Pericles and Col seem to think that they are being asked to personally fund PML”

The fabric of the nation in which we live is constructed around the laws and regulations which it enacts. Laws for paid PML WILL influence me by being on the statute and shaping the nation.

All the proposals a government funded element is included, that being so it is my taxes being diverted instead of being left in my pocket for me to spend on whatever takes my fancy, like the nice new TV I bought yesterday.

“If you cannot construct an erudite argument as to why children should not be given a fair start in life, you are wasting OLO readers’ valuable time.”

Children are only ever given a “fair start in life” by being born to caring parents.

Unfortunately, it is the welfare bludging socialist voting scumbags who breed and then neglect their offspring. I am not responsible for their neglect and resent my taxes being handed out on welfare for food and clothes being diverted to pay for fags, beer and crystal meth.

Nothing anyone else can do will ever change that.

As for “valuable time” in your case, what seems to be completely free can hardly be assumed to have any value at all.

Your suggestion, to the erudite qualities of debate is, like most of your small minded and envious posts completely facile.

I know in posting, anything of mine you read is a waste of time but that is your shortcoming, a bigoted and limited intellect is what makes your mind so closed to the bleeding obvious.

As for your list of things which would supposedly happen if men had babies

If women ruled the world we would have all died off generations ago because instead of getting on with life we would have lost our fertile years in just talking about it.

Keep posting, maybe bring a turkey along with you next time and we can slap that too.

Fractelle,

I think your fantasy world shows just how much you hate men. It sounds to me like the bitter rantings of an angry misandrist feminist.

'meaning they are able to be breast fed, to feel loved and needed and have their developmental needs supported and enhanced by the full time love and care of a parent.
'

Able to? They already are able to.
Why do you think that women with pleanty of money still put their children in child care? Because feminism has told them they are nothing if they don't go out to work. Couples are also addicted to the trappings of materialism.

PML wont change anything. My back neigbour runs a child care business and her customers leave the kids in child care when they're on holidays because they would rather play tennis than play with their kids.

If couples really wanted one parent to stay at home they would make financial sacrifices elsewhere. They don't, and PML wont change this.

The welfare system can look after the genuinely poor.