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.