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...