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.