A bit of history and how times change,
The Lang (Labor) Government established the Widows' Pension Act 1926 (NSW), which provided pensions for widows with dependent children under the age of fourteen. The amount was 5 shillings a week (50c). The conservative side of politics derided widows pensions from two angles. Firstly there was the standard cry that it will send NSW bankrupt. Secondly there was derision on the grounds of how dare the state make payments directly to women. The conservatives seen this as attacking the moral fiber of woman, it was tantamount to making widows into "kept women" and who knows where that would lead to. Out having a good time on their 5 bob a week.
The second bit of history,
For a very short period in history Australia had a non means tested old age pension. in 1973 it was introduced that all persons aged 75 and over were entitled to a pension. Then in 1975 it was applied to all aged 70 and over. One who applied for and was granted the pension was none other that Sir Robert Menzies, founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert was already doing well from the state, but he was entitled to this benefit. There was such an outcry about Menzies getting this pension that the means test was reapplied in 1976.

"If parental leave is to be approved at all it must be applied the same as any other form of leave."

Paid for by the Employer and not Tax Payer?

Its a waste of money, pure and simple. Money that would be better off spent on our overcrowded child care systems or our schools, our hospitals A&E's...etc

Of course, the funny thing is that in order to contribute to this thread, we are all indulging in tap-tapping away electronically.

PC - smart phone, it's all part of the same phenomenon.

So the next time you walk past someone tapping on a smart phone - they could be posting a comment on OLO

(Bec, it's nice to see you've become a regular. You may have noticed that were a bit light on women around here)

Thank you Poirot, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussions as my family have got to rolling their eyes at me every time I "Start" with my "political Mumbo Jumbo". I have learnt heaps in my short time on the forum.

Sorry folks - wrong thread.

Bec_young mum of 2, "Its (Parental Leave) a waste of money, pure and simple. Money that would be better off spent on our overcrowded child care systems or our schools, our hospitals A&E's...etc"

You misunderstand me. I am not arguing for or against Parental Leave. Although I have noted that it is a common enough leave entitlement elsewhere. Probably because of the feminist lobby, which is led by and serves the interests of educated middle class career women.

What I contend is something else entirely, that if there is parental leave it must be universal and its conditions universal too. Shrinking the entitlements of women just because they are successful is grossly discriminatory. It is class warfare. It also allows for the pruning of other conditions, and examples could be youth and older workers. It is also possible to argue that adult wages (full wages) is 'welfare for (say) youth, new workers, aged workers and so on. Or that workers earning above a certain wage should be paid reduced wages for all forms of leave, eg long service leave.

The question you are posing is Parental Leave or not, which is fair enough if tat is what you really mean.

Those who argue it is welfare are probably only doing that to have some way of excluding the 'rich'. If they were honest is saying it is welfare, they would be including stay at home mothers, which they are not. Their argument is one of class spite, not welfare.