Government policy has interfered with the family unit by forcing both parents to register for work, while unemployed, once the youngest child reaches six years of age. It does not differ between disabled or able-bodied children.
The exception; parents who are financially independent. Those on a pension/benefit, particularly, are vulnerable to potentially losing their social security payments if they were to choose to stay at home and look after the children. The most vulnerable, is the sole/single parent.
There is no disagreement with the concept that social security is a safety blanket for people becoming unemployed until they gain employment. However, I do disagree that both parents must register for work. It is cost-effective and in the interest of society to allow one parent to remain at home to look after the children. Whether it is the father or mother is immaterial. The circumstances will govern that.
Many parents started families when young. One parent, and often it is likely to be the mother, may not have gained professional/ trade skills. These skills may be out of date by the time the wish to seek employment.
Financially independent families choosing that one member stays at home to look after the children are fortunate, but not everyone is in that position. Child care/minding costs is increasing rapidly.
This means that one or both parents need to receive a substantial salary to be able to afford child care or minding. The majority of jobs do not pay that sort of money. Then to say that a mother choosing to stay at home should be grateful she has a husband who supports this is a paternalistic view. “Parenting” is a joint responsibility, each parent sharing different but responsible tasks, therefore both share the responsibility of child rearing.
Forcing both parents to seek employment is to put the Health and Well-being of the family and Society at risk.
Government policy has forced parents into a competitive position for employment unless the single wage is sufficient to ignore this government directive that you must register for work or lose your social security entitlements.
Professori_au
Continued:

What are the options? Without affordable service the children become “latch-key” kids, left to roam the street, becoming self centred and demanding rather than learning to integrate and live with the community.
I would rather the government recognise that the most important job in the world is looking after the health and well being of our children and hand back the parenting role to the parents. Other employment falls behind that.
It concerns me that the trend has been to commercialise child care and pre-school services. This service should be part of the tax payer system where every child and parent should be entitled to appropriate support during those years.
A “user pay” system of education only means that you are financially able to pay for and education, not that your child has the ability to gain from or contribute to the future of Australia. Australia is losing the benefits of our children’s abilities, minds and skills that would have been developed with the appropriate support mechanisms.
People opting to study rather continue to seek these wages that are unreasonably below standard are not included in the unemployment levels.
Australia appears to be behind Britain and many other countries in its approach to social justice issues.
My area of interest is the disabled children and their parents. The parents of these children whether sole or both means that these parents are on duty 24/7 hours per day, yet the government does little to provide adequate support. Even they, lose benefits once the child turns six year old and enters mainstream education. Disabilities do not cure themselves once a child turns six year old and they will frequently need care and support through adulthood.

Employment issues, Social Justice and Social equity are complex and difficult and I would not presume to have the answers. However, I hope I have raised some of the issues that can be addressed.
Regards.
professori_au

CJ,

'The casualisation of the workforce in recent years has impacted more upon women than men, which results in them working less hours due to inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner. Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment.

You could look at that another way. A lot of women are quite happy their jobs are casualised, as it gives them flexibility to be the primary carer which in a lot of cases is what they want. A lot of men would like the opportunity to stay at home, but don't have that flexibility to work part time.

'inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner'

Inequiatable for who? I'm with pelican on this. Couples decide what is best for them. All factors come into play, including who earns more, how willing the woman is to give up being primary carer, how willing the man is to be primary carer, and how flexible both their employers are among other things.

I agree something must be done about super for primary carers though.

Antiseptics point is really that quoting statistics that ignore the fact that couples pool their resources is deliberately misleading. As I said, the only disadvantage for the primary carer is superannuation IF the couple doesn't stay together. If they do, the woman will likely outlast the man and get all the extra super for herself once he's dead.

For mine, working 2 days a week and spending the rest with the kids is a much more balanced lifestyle, and I'd jump at the chance if my partners and my circumstances were different.

Proff are you saying that a parent should be in the home caring for their own little children and not shipping them off to pre-schools and that a parent of a disabled child should be entitled to benefits for as long as it takes not until the age of 6?

Are you suggesting we equalize the school system and get rid of private vs public schooling and segregating children as we know it?
Do you want families to become more important than unemployment statistics?

Am I hearing that you would like to see wages raised so that a parent can remain in the home and actually parent which would enable their children to become better and more integrated members of society and not become latchkey kids just so the parents can live slightly over par?

All seems okay until you look around. Department of Community Services fund big time to get the children out of the home and into to pre-schools, they insist on pre-schools and counseling services. I’d say a rather large chunk of the economy goes into the expectation that no one can cope with their own kids and they must go to every type of service and counseling available. Daycare and early intervention workers trucking off each day after shoving their own kids in to a playcentre that can care for them while they care for other peoples. Disabled kids leave the home at about 7:30am?

Proff even when I offer, government departments insist children must be rushed out of the house early each morning and not bought back until later. The government apparently wants the children “socialized” because god forbid a child “attaches” to its caregiver. Even if I state I can handle something I am told No we need 27 adults involved and 300 man hours a week spent with this child alone.

IT IS IMPORTANT CASEWORK PLANNING AND ALL OUR EXPERIENCE AND PROFFESIONAL EXPERTISE HAS GONE IN TO THIS CASE PLAN.

Fact that it hasn’t worked makes no difference. One foster child in the course of being a state ward can make NGO’s rich.

Pelican
The new IR laws have nothing to do with it, it will be the same as it was always even under the Libs.
That's a bold statement, considering the new laws are just that, 'New'!

So do you think the same way about the maternity laws as well when they are introduced?

Howard thought up that little nugget to support his claim that WorkChoices would increase employment which it did not except in the mining sector which would have occurred anyway given the boom.

Crap! This system has been in place for years. You can't blame everything on workchoices you know.

Now as for women earning less, well, as always, it depends on the circumstances of the job. You can't expect to 'do less' and 'be paid the same'.

I doubt a telle marketer's pay would differ between women and men. Happy to be proven wrong though!

Realestate agents base rate is the same. Same job, same pay. What is the problem?

Now in my industry women get paid less than men simply because they can't perform the same tasks, and nor are they expected to.

Problem is, they are paid 94% of a butchers wage, yet they can't use the saw, the mincer, a knife, they can't lift as much, so, this is why there are far less women in our industry than men. They are simply not value for money.

One can't expect to perform 75% of the tasks and receive 94% of the rate. The sums just don't add up.

Houellebecq:"I agree something must be done about super for primary carers though."

This might tie in nicely with my suggestion to get rid of the current CS arrangements and apply a child-support levy to all workers, whether parents or not. Part of that levy could be earmarked for future super/pension for primary carers, perhaps?

rehctub:"This system has been in place for years"

As I recall it was introduced under Hawke/Keating back in the mid-80s. I can't recall the justification used though.

Professor_au, nice summation of the issues. As you said, the child care industry has now become a "sector", with lobbyists and huge sums of taxpayer money being thrown at it. Once that happens, the interests of the "sector" become confused with the interests of the people it was set up to serve and unless the clients of the industry have some way of influencing govt as much as the industry itself can, they can be forgotten.