The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Abbotts paid parental scheme, fact or fiction?

Abbotts paid parental scheme, fact or fiction?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
In an effort of fairness, I cant help but think that Tony Abbotts PPS was little more than an election hoax, as even he is starting to utter words like, well, we will have to wait and see if it gets through the senate.

For the record, i thought it was always a shocker, still do, but it woud be a sad act if it turns out to be an election hoax, one that may well cost him dearly.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:47:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

Why would it be sad if Abbott needs to give up his position?

The only sense he is liberal is with our tax-money, so why is he in the Liberal party in the first place?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:28:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

"...but it woud be a sad act if it turns out to be an election hoax..."

With the exception of "Stop the Boats" and "Axe the Tax" - pretty much everything else Abbot & Co spruiked before the election was a hoax (not to mention all the thrilling "surprises" they've mooted since they won power), so this would just be another to add to the list.

However, I'm of the opinion that Abbott wasn't hoaxing on this....he's often referred to it as a signature policy. Although, he must realise that it will be difficult to get passed in the Senate if he doesn't have the numbers.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it's all about movement of the mouth, it sounded very courageous before the election, but there was a con, everything was a con.
Our debt is raging on unhindered. We do not need a gigantic paid parental scheme
Posted by 579, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:11:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear 579,

<<We do not need a gigantic paid parental scheme>>

We don't need ANY paid parental scheme.

If those who download more humans into this already overcrowded world are not punished, at least they should not be rewarded!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:15:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, obviously your not a parent hey!

I firmly believe that Abbott knew he couldn't get this through, especially not knowing the full extent of the mess he was about to inherit.

The reason it would be sad is because he would have lowered himself to Gillards level, lies.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:39:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He is full of it, 457 visas. He will be hoping it won't go through. Can he explain the 185 million / day he is spending. That was another problem he had before the election but now it seems ok.
Even qld is 80 billion in the red. All talk and unemployment is not in his favor, that is why the 457 visas i suppose.
Posted by 579, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:48:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

"The reason it would be sad is because he would have lowered himself to Gillards level, lies."

Ho,ho,ho....the Abbott govt almost totally misrepresented its intentions before the election.

If it was a product, we'd be able to return it under the trade descriptions act.

Howard had his "core" - "non-core" spiel....sadly Abbott has a lesser version which runs something like: "We're going to implement the policies we outlined pre-election - not the ones 'people thought' we outlined."

What about Gonski? Pyne says pre-election: "Oh this is terrible, we'll leave it for a year then dismantle it and fix things up"

24 hours later (pe-election) he says: " OOh we like it now. We'll stick to the script and leave it. We're on unity ticket with Gonski."

Post-election, Pyne tries to pull a swifty, then backflips, then forward somersaults - then pikes...in fact he's still in mid dive...tune in next week for his latest manoeuvre.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:17:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With Abbott's terrible problems wooing half the population's votes, women, he had to do something didn't he?
Thus the paid parental scheme.

In order to honour his main election promise, he had better come through on this one.
I'm hoping my daughter will consider having a baby soon :)
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:27:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's pretty much a huge indictment on our social democracy that a con-artist supposedly "fiscally responsible" govt can woo people in on the strength of handing out welfare money willy-nilly to rich women who don't "need" it.

It should be means tested.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Suxe, correct me if im wrong, but what your saying is, although it is an unaffordable policy, you hope it gets in for your daughters sake. interesting view.

Poriot, which ever way you care to look at it, Abbott's perceived incompetence comes a distant second to that of Rudd, Gillard,Rudd.

I for one never thought it would get in, one because it was too generous, and tow, because it was unaffordable.

I still say people wanting to have a family should be able to better utilize their super, as this would take the financial burden away from the tax payer at large, because after all, having a baby is a personal choice.

Finally, for this who say other countries have such schemes, all i can say is just have a good hard look at how they're fairing.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.....It should be means tested.

Theres that means tested argument again.

Firstly, that woman who you say doesn't deserve assistance, has no doubt worked very hard to get to where she is and, has no doubt paid a lot of tax along the way. To say they don't deserve to be looked after is just wrong, as it is they who are actually looking after the two thirds of the population that cant look after themselves, without government hand outs.

Now while i may be against the policy, i get frustrated with those who think while they deserve a hand out, well off people dont.

Either people are treated equally, or they're not, which is it, because equal treatment 'when it suits' just doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 11:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctub I agree with you that all should be treated equally in this matter.

To do that however, all mothers should get the same amount of money. I am sick of hearing about giving more to the most needy, [read most lazy more often than not], but I also don't see why a high achiever/high earner deserves more payment from the tax payer for popping out a baby.

All babies require the same number of cots, prams & clothes. If the high achiever requires better quality, let them pay for it, from that achievement.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 14 March 2014 12:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stupid right from the start, it makes as much sense as stationing a mob of drones in SA. Or organising a more abbott friendly treasury.
Either way Abbott has an agenda which no one knows about, probably bring him unstuck, from his own side.
Posted by 579, Friday, 14 March 2014 12:28:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

What a great idea...you do know the reasoning behind "welfare" don't you?

You're aware that countries with a robust social democracy, and sound economic management, such as Nordic countries, are fairly healthy, peaceful, fair and stable societies?

If you could put away your petty resentments for a moment and cogitate on society as a whole - instead of who you think might be ripping you off - it would be helpful.

It's one thing for parties to pork-barrel the middle-class with it, entirely another to give welfare to people on very high incomes so they can maintain the latest model BMW.

Hasbeen,

I'm sure the yummy mummies would disagree that all cots, clothes are equal. One has to be able to shop at the trendiest infant boutiques with their largesse from the taxpayer...none of that K-Mart rubbish for Blake or Ruby.

: )
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 1:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....you do know the reasoning behind "welfare" don't you?

Too right i do Poirot, it was introduced to be a 'hand up' not a 'hand out'. It was never designed to be a generational way of life, nor was it designed to be a support mechanism for people who wanted multiple children, often to multiple fathers, who knew one, they couldn't afford them, and two, they didn't have to work if they had enough, mistake or no mistake.

In fact, if not for the noses in the trough, myself and my wife could also look forward to the pension, in reward for our efforts, not to mention the lack of support we didn't get for our two children. I say two, because as responsible parents, thats the number we could afford.

....It's one thing for parties to pork-barrel the middle-class with it, entirely another to give welfare to people on very high incomes so they can maintain the latest model BMW.

Poirot, firstly, i dont support the scheme, get it!

As for your tall poppy statement, spare a thought for those who work extra hard, either through education, or work, then get denied what those who dont work hard get gifted.

Every single person should be entitled to the same thing and, if they work hard, why should that come with punishment.

I have a different outlook to most, as i say, we are all provided with an equal opportunity to fail.

The screw up with welfare, is the better you make yourself, the less you receive, this despite the amount of contributions you made.

The other ironic thing is, if you work hard, and waste every cent, you get rewarded in the end, as some other wood duck will work hard and do well just for your benefit.

Its a crazy world.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 1:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

Yes, I do "get it".

"As for your tall poppy statement, spare a thought for those who work extra hard, either through education, or work, then get denied what those who dont work hard get gifted."

People on huge incomes don't need a "hand up" or a "hand out".

Just on that, I've got a few friends who like to "work extra hard". Some of them are choosing to "work extra hard" up north (WA) for big bickies. One friend, who is a senior electrician, has just chosen to to accept a position on Barrow Island on a 26/9 rota (Having just finished a 6 month stint elsewhere on a 28/7 rota) . He'll be away from his wife and 3 very young children most of the time. I think they're nuts, but they're doing it to make a lot of money in the next few years so they can build a house on a block they're paying off overlooking the ocean.

I note from the other thread that you have a problem with people like him being paid so much in penalties.

If it wasn't for a big fat pay cheque, he wouldn't be doing it because the sacrifice would be too great.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 1:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Butch wants it all ways. An extremist of ideas. Where'as Abbott wants more workers from 457 visas. Exploitation again will be rife. Fill the pockets of the well to do ladies, and look after Gina. Should be good for an election slush fund.
Posted by 579, Friday, 14 March 2014 3:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, with all due respect, you are now trying to redirect the thread.

So do you think that by being away from his family, that his family deserves less than any other, just because he chooses to work away.

Given that you mentioned penalty rates, how do you see Sundays being any different from other days, given his on/off roster?
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 3:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

"Poirot, with all due respect, you are now trying to redirect the thread."

"Given that you mentioned penalty rates, how do you see Sundays being any different from other days, given his on/off roster?"

Unfortunately I have to decline to reply as it would constitute a further redirection of the thread.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 4:15:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM, i am no fan of this scheem, never have been. In fact, you will see in my posts leading up to the election that i thought it was a shocker.

As far as support goes, im of the opinion that having a child, like so many dsicions is a personal choice, and one that must be budgeted for. Having said that, if we have to have a scheem, i think Labors current scheem is fine, and fair.

579, i don't want it both ways, i just don't see why some who do well, are expected to support those who don't, often by choice.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 14 March 2014 4:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, "One friend, who is a senior electrician.."

A 'senior electrician' eh, you don't find many of those about. He would have an interesting CV.

Do carry on with the stories though, the keyboard is your creative instrument.

Returning to the thread, what do you have to say about senior public service bureaucrats including professionals who are in receipt of high remuneration packages? Should the Senior Executive Service women of the federal public service be denied the full benefits of the parental leave they have enjoyed and added to since 1973? Must the entitlements of these women be cut back by you to that of the middle managers - who admittedly are on a jolly good remuneration packages themselves compared with the rest of the community?
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:04:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otb,

Sorry, your high-and-haughtiness...by senior electrician I meant that he was in a position to lead teams of electricians, which he's done on mine sites in the north.

Why bother to picky-picky at that type of thing? You really are a pedantic sour individual aren't you...it's how you get your kicks, I suppose.

You're also a most interesting psychological study.

: )
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:09:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

BTT

You didn't reply to this,

<Returning to the thread, what do you have to say about senior public service bureaucrats including professionals who are in receipt of high remuneration packages? Should the Senior Executive Service women of the federal public service be denied the full benefits of the parental leave they have enjoyed and added to since 1973? Must the entitlements of these women be cut back by you to that of the middle managers - who admittedly are on a jolly good remuneration packages themselves compared with the rest of the community?>
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:04:44 PM
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:19:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"....Must the entitlements of these women be cut back by you to that of the middle managers..."

Lol!

If yer don't mind, I think I've got better things to do.

I can sense an "otb Faux Outrage Special" in the wind - and I'm kind of over bothering to respond to you...knowing your style so well.

Have a nice evening : )
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:52:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

It is a simple enough question and I will make it simpler for you, why should other women who excel and have made their way to leadership positions or to the top of their profession not get the same parental leave entitlements as their equivalents in the federal public service?

What about politicians?

You have been asked similar questions in threads before, but never a reply directed at answering the question.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 14 March 2014 9:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi,
Can someone please tell who pays? Is it the boss or the taxpayer.
If its the boss I hope he's got deep pockets.
If its the taxpayer then that really p#@#%% me off because I am already paying for pre-school, child minding and after school care, pre and post natal care and all the other medicare costs associated with having a baby and all the subsidized pharmaceuticals needed to care for the child and now I expected to pay the mother (and/or father) a wage to look after the child for a few months.
Fair go mate.
Pregnancy is a S.I.W (self inflicted wound) People make their own choices and in doing so they should make the necessary adjustments in their life.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Friday, 14 March 2014 11:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctib "So Suxe, correct me if im wrong, but what your saying is, although it is an unaffordable policy, you hope it gets in for your daughters sake. interesting view."

Absolutely!
Why not?

Chrisgaffe1000, I don't like paying taxes that might go towards tax-free religious 'charities' either, but because I realise I am part of the larger community, I suck it up and deal with it.

To my mind, encouraging families to be able to afford to have more children can only be a good thing for our country. With our rapidly aging population, we need more young workers bringing up the rear.

All those against paid parental leave will, of course, be quite happy with working mums leaving their newborns at daycare from a few weeks old?
With all the blame being directed at mothers for 'allowing' themselves to get pregnant when they can't afford to be off work, why not blame the daddies who were also involved in making the baby, and who are unable to support the wife and child on one wage then?

I believe low and middle income women should be paid their full wage while off with their babies for 12 months. The higher paid women should be paid a wage equivalent to most of the middle income earners.

We do need a definite cut-off point, and it should be lower than what the generous (foolish?) Abbott Govt. have proposed.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 15 March 2014 2:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suze,

>I believe low and middle income women should be paid their full wage while off with their babies for 12 months.<

How about we change our system so that mums in amenable employment just take their baby to work with them (bus and train drivers and mine workers and such excluded) - under appropriately adjusted conditions - after an initial say 12 weeks 'adjustment' period on full (asset-capped) paid leave?

I realize you don't believe in population control, and won't accept any argument that global resources are already being stretched towards breaking-point, but just because we in Oz are in the fortunate position of being able to afford to pay many thousands of people not to work, is that any reason to prefer bolstering local procreation over the possible relocation of some of those garbage-dump kids and their families in Asia to Oz and a much brighter future?

We may be the 'lucky country', but in so many ways we are looking more like a lot of spoilt brats living in a fool's paradise.
(But of course 'we' are not alone in this folly, this illusion of 'entitlement' and of infinite prosperity.)

Our national budget is shot to hell, our productivity curve is in rapid decline, unemployment is going up, population growing and jobs declining, with exports down and no silver bullet on the horizon; yet everyone wants pay rises, better conditions, more jobs for youth and for the over-50's, and full-on retention of capable women in jobs/careers by paying them more to have babies.
Something doesn't compute.

Education, healthcare, NDIS, NBN, high-speed rail, expressways and better roads, low-cost housing and more and better amenities, and increased welfare and allowance 'benefits'; all competing for a share of a shrinking budget.
So, where's the money coming from? Increased national debt?
But, increased PPL trumps the rest of the grab-bag? In whose opium pipe-dream would that be?
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 15 March 2014 4:48:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
where I live mothers & grandmothers have been receiving financial assistance for the same baby/child. School chidren are getting $25.- a day pocket money plus free boarding school. PPS has been in place long before the name Tony Abbott become well known. If people can't afford to raise children then they should a: see a clinic to have a snip or b: ask the anti abortion lobby to fund them. Leave the taxpayer alone. PPS is an idiotic proposal & if that's what's needed to get votes then we can all give up now.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 15 March 2014 7:40:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suze......With our rapidly aging population, we need more young workers bringing up the rear.

You hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, our youth unenployment numbers are rising and, if this latest challenge goes through, whereby lowering the age for an adult wage, that will amplify the problem.

I have to agree with the stand from a long time poster, we need some type of national service for our youth, that, rather than protecting our nation, attends to the many public shortcomings we face on a daliy basis simply because our system cant cope.

What better encouragement could you get to motivate self success in our youth.

As for PPL, it should be funded though parents personal super funds and tax breaks should be given to expectant parents. At lest then the tax payer can be left alone to continue trying the plug the massive hole we now have.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 15 March 2014 8:19:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not follow any political party and as is usual for me where government policy is concerned, I do not mind what is decided but expect that policy would be evidence based, agreed through direct consultation with the public and that there be measurable goals and value for money obtained.

PPL does not satisfy many of these conditions, if any. The problem is that government policy, speaking of both sides, is driven by feminist idealism. The public does not get a look in. As well, there is the over-arching policy of growth, and the persistent high level of immigration that is (wrongly) claimed to build economic and social growth (whatever social growth is). There is evidence that the public disagree with some if not all of these policies.

The federal bureaucracy has been the leader in feminist-inspired employment policy since the days of Gough Whitlam. That was expanded to become a policy of 'diversity', which along with positive affirmative action and targets - they do exist - dominate personnel management policy and especially recruitment and promotion. Arguably the policies must be failures because government agencies still have staff beavering away on affirmative action and 'diversity' 'initiatives'.

What government should do is review the need for the policies that give rise to (feminist) solutions in search of a problem, such as PPL. However in the interim it is mildly amusing to watch the feminist elite of educated middle class careerists promoting inequity for women and arguing over it. There are so many secondary agendas coming to the fore.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 15 March 2014 11:41:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The baby Bonus and PPL are just vote buying exercises and both should be axed. As should the high immigration rate. However both major parties are in receipt of large donations from big business and the donors expect some value for the funds given. Business wants a higher population to sell more consumer goods. They care not if our standard of living goes down as long as the sales go up. Immigration has had a large impact in pushing up home prices and now first timers don't get a look in.

It was wrong for Costello's baby bonus, now adopted by Labor as well and now there is Abbott's PPL which will just add another burden to tax revenue. On top of this there is the NBN, Gonski and the NDIS. Where doe it all stop. I cannot see one projected scheme that actually contributes any revenue or savings.

We cannot build the infrastructure for our population now so what about the future? When the time comes for the need to increase our population, we can bring in more immigrants and favour those with young families.

If people want to have kids it is up to them to bear the cost. It is after all their choice.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 15 March 2014 1:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banyo, while i was a Howard supporter, and now an Abbott supporter, i thought the baby bonus was a real shocker, in fact, i commented about it when it was introduced.

Although i am no fan of hand outs, if anything, what should have been done with BB money, was to make child care affordable for working parents, rather than be a lollipop for many who either couldn't, or didn't use it as was intended

All the BB did was encourage too many single mums, many who were kids themselves, to spit out kids, with no intention, experience or no how toward providing them with a well mentored upbringing. Of cause there are the exceptions, but daddy they are the minority.

Like many well intended government policies, from both sides, most governments lack implementation skills resulting in gross waste of public funds.

Abbotts PPS on the other hand is an outright shocker and hopefully wont see the light of day.

Its just a pity some were gullible enough to be sucked in.

I say sucked in because anyone who has any idea of where we are right now, knew full well this would not eventuate. I think it was an elaborate political hoax.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 15 March 2014 2:51:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Butch,
I am not neccessarilly a LNP voter either. Except I felt it essential, prior to the last election, that we get rid of the worst government in our history. Done that and now I expect the LNP government to perform with financial management and giving people an incentive to get ahead. Labor left them with a huge debt that has to be repaid.

They should ditch the baby bonus and can the PPL. We cannot go ahead with the NDIS or the Gonski education scheme. If Abbott has to go back on his word, so be it. Most will accept we have a huge debt to pay off, which leaves a lot less than we would like for other things.

Stopping the illegal entrants has to be the first priority and will save millions. Morrison is doing well so far.

We can do without the baby bonus and the PPL.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 15 March 2014 5:39:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo "If Abbott has to go back on his word, so be it."

Whilst I don't like those policies I like even less the political culture of lying to get elected and subsequent broken promises that seems to have become such a routine part of the political landscape.

Far better to stick to committments and if being in office has changed perspective on the affordability of programs then go to the next election with announced policies to stop them. My impression is that overall the LNP still has a chance of going to the next election having largely kept their word (getting debt under control being an outstanding one). If they can't keep their word then go back to the electorate with a plan that they think will work.

Dropping such clear policies without going to the poles after the noise they made about Julia's lie(s) would not be a good look.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 15 March 2014 6:57:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
It would not be a good look but the available funds will only go so far. If the government is to keep that undertaking, they will have to cut other things to get the money.

Looks like being between a rock and a hard place.

That is what happens when one over commits or costs arise that one does not allow for.

Spose they could do the Labor thing and just keep borrowing, but that also tends to catch up at some stage.

Their call.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 15 March 2014 8:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,
Nobody should be allowed to have children unless they can afford to raise them WITHOUT taxpayer funding.
Why should I be obliged to pay for someone else's children.
Are they going to look after me in my old age.
Is is bad enough that government allows genetically defective adults to procreate at taxpayers expense and even encourages the practice and now they expect me to fund more and more socially dependent variables in the equation.
--"I believe low and middle income women should be paid their full wage while off with their babies for 12 months"--
With who's money Suseonline. Not mine. Why not ask me first. I and mine have to go without to support some irresponsible parent who decides to get pregnant because there is money in it.
I"m sorry Suseonline your argument is full of c%$p.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 15 March 2014 9:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrissgaff,
It gets even worse.

There are now allegations that Tanya Plibersek, as Minister, was responsible for a low cost rental housing scheme that apparently cost $4.5 billion of our money.

The scheme has many twists and turns but it appears that developers were making a monsa and the places ended up being rented to overseas students. So much for the poor who were supposed to get them.

Complete mismanagement and disregard for the proper use of our funds. More to come on this I venture.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 15 March 2014 10:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, while i agree that lies should not be taken to an election,or at any time actually, you would have to have been very neieve, or ignorant to our financial situation leading up to the recent election if you thought Abbotts PPs was affordable, along with labors unfunded dreams, Gonski and NDIS.

If a person was ignorant to the situation, then this just provides more strength to the argument that compulsory voting should be removed, as it forces people with no interest in our situation to vote.

Furthermore, if Abbotts PPS scheem was the primary reason for voting libs, then more fool them, as my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:32:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

"Furthermore, if Abbotts PPS scheem was the primary reason for voting libs, then more fool them, as my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits."

What a hoot!

You know how it's done, especially these days - and why Howard initially championed "middle-class welfare" and Labor continued with it - the pork barrel is to get people to vote a certain way, primarily resting on self-interest.

The problem is, if you believe Hockey's swagger and his line that a post GFC AAA economy with one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios is a basket case, you'll believe anything.

People vote out of self-interest. People spruik their political views for the same reason - as you are doing now.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

I definitely support the removal of compulsory voting, yet I will continue to vote anyway:

<<my best advice to them is to take a little more notice of what makes the wheels turn, rather than just focusing on the self interested juicy bits.>>

Why should I care whether their wheels are turning while they forbid me to turn mine?

I state again: in the next federal elections, I will give my vote to the party who will allow me to ride a bicycle (without wearing a pot on my head, which is out of the question).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub, I don't recall ever thinking it was affordable. Rather I think the issue of political honesty is a bigger issue than that particular straw added to the camels back.

Abbott has at least one of the options available that Julia had. He could go to the polls admitting that the committments they made prior to the last election are not all achievable.

My impression is that so far other than stuffing around with education funding they have not clearly breached (or tried to breach) pre-election committments. Debt is a biggy thats still out there but at this stage it is in the not achieved rather than dropped category.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:03:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not only that, RObert, but the Abbott govt has outstripped Labor govt's average borrowing since September by around 20% - $50 odd billion since the election...$7 billion last week.

And I do recall Pyne attempting and still gnawing away and tinkering with Gonski. There's a whole raft of things they never mentioned pre-election...medicare co-payments have been mooted, tinkering with medicare in general, tinkering with pensions...etc, etc.

Remember what Abbott has made clear...they're going to implement the policies they outlined before the election - not the one's we "thought" they outlined.

Lol!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:13:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, you walk a fine line, as the truth is becoming harder and harder to talk about without be branded as a racist or similar.

I must say I agree with you that it is irresponsible to allow mentally disabled people to bare children, while not only expecting others to be responsible for paying for the child, but paying for ongoing caring, should it be unfortunate enough to be handicapped. The line must be drawn somewhere.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:16:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You could say they spun a whole lot of crap. Abbott had an agenda that would not be favorable to an electorate. So he deliberately misinformed the public. That could be seen as more deceivable than anything Julia had ever done. The man is a ferret, and will never make a leader of anything.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:22:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert i was not suggesting you thought the scheem was affordable, I had aleaded assumed you were clever enough to know where we are.

Poirot, just what do you think Abbott has spent the money on.

Has he commenced any major public ifrastructure programs?

Has he spent billion on our health system?

Has he spent billion s on Gonski?

No, i think you will find that all he has spent money on is either trying ti fix one of labors many stuff ups, or, pumped money into the inherited illegals mess, another labor fiasco, or, has he simply been paying interest on labors MASSIVE DEBT that they so conveniently rang up and left behind.

I do recall he putting a few billion into banks of some kind.

So, rather than try to brush your beloved labors screw ups onto Abbott, perhaps you could man up and acknowledge the mess you appear to have helped to create.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:34:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
butch you are a floating volcano, ready to spew at any time. Abbott is responsible for the best part of 60 billion since he has been at the helm. He was not talking anything of the sort before the election. Is that misinformation, that is why we do not have a ceiling for debt any more. Abbott had it all under control, as he told anyone. But as we find out they don't even have a plan, let alone any policy. And now he has gone against solar, trivial stuff that will not achieve anything, like the price on carbon, virtual money that does not exist, why all because of his big mouth.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 16 March 2014 10:05:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

"I do recall he putting a few billion into banks of some kind."

You mean like this?

"In a speech at a Sydney investment conference this morning, Stevens backed up comments by the RBA deputy governor last week that the bank was happy to rebuild its capital reserves over time. The RBA certainly didn’t ask for Hockey’s $8.8 billion capital injection and didn’t think it was necessary."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/joe-hockey-blowing-hundreds-of-millions-to-make-himself-look-good-20131029-2wcy3.html

"The RBA wanted to rebuild its capital over several years by retaining its profits and not paying the government dividends.

Hockey’s $8.8 billion injection this year means dividends will be paid to the government over the next few years."

One of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the OECD.

You guys think Hockey is a guru...he's a fake, full of nothing but swagger. Did you see his speeches for the G20....they were pathetic - wall-to-wall motherhood statements - something even commented on by some of those involved.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 16 March 2014 10:15:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, i acpect the likes of 579 to dodge the question, but surely you can accept that the debt left behind, thts being the dollar value, not the comparison to some other nation, has to be serviced.

So how do you propose he services this inherited debt without spending money?

Now as for the lowed debt ratio, where do you think we would be now had we not taken a risk on Rudd?

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, honestly think we would be where we are today?

if so, why?
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 12:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rechtub,

"Now as for the lowed debt ratio, where do you think we would be now had we not taken a risk on Rudd?"

Well, in the wake of the GFC, if we'd opted for austerity...you can pretty well take your pick from some of the European countries in this graph.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 16 March 2014 12:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poiret, i don't have so much of a problem with labors idea to stimulate the economy, rather, my concern was always the way they went about it with too much haste and not enough planning, or, acknowledgment of industry experts.

Insulation, a disaster of mammoth proportions, in fact a royal commission is under way i believe.

Cash hand outs, again, not a silly idea, but why on earth did they one, allow for such waste of much of the splash, twice!, and two, how could they have possibly given money out to dead people.

School halls. How could they possibly allow million dollar contracts to proceed on jobs worth way less?

The answer is a combination of incompetence and aragonce.
Three, where would they have been had they started,as Abbott has, with no money and a huge debt?

There are many reasons they got booted out, with the main one being that they were incompetent.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 1:05:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The GFC did not happen for some. We are still in a very strong position given our GDP is up 275 million on this time last year. Abbott's guaranteed unemployment of 70,000 will not be helpful. Stop the boats has a gigantic cost attached to it and ongoing. all i can presume is that is where the extra 185 million $ / day is going. Malaysia would have been a far cheaper option. Still could happen yet. Abbott's abandonment of the rets will put more pressure on the conglomerates like origin, who are battling with electricity generation as it is. This will likely put upward pressure on electricity pricing. When and if they get rid of the carbon price the generators will swallow it and nothing will change.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 16 March 2014 1:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
......Malaysia would have been a far cheaper option.

Oh dear 579, what a hide you have, knowing FULL WELL the only reason we have this VERY EXPENSIVE mess, is thatks to the brain fart of one Kevin Rudd. To think you and your supporters still worship this guy defies logic. Of cause thats where the waste is going. And of cause his and Julias $180 grand a year FOR LIFE. Thanks for that, my grand kids will learn of what hate means,as they are taught about the incompetence of australia's worst government in modern history.

I wonder if you lot will ever take responsibility for the mess you encouraged with you unconditional support of such incompetence. I doubt it, because after all, you appear to have still voted for them, despite the waste and miss management they repeatedly displayed.

If they were company CEO's they would be most certainly bankrupted as they would have signed personal guarantees no doubt, as is usually the case of risk takers.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 3:24:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your argument does not make sense. If labor was an incompetent govt; we would not be so well of as we are now.
You are taking Abbott's foot in mouth approach. The noalition have yet to change anything so what do you make of that. Everything is ok.
Abbott has an agenda that he did not disclose before the election.
Persons far to the right are the only ones endearing such a fool.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 16 March 2014 3:41:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579.....if labor was an incompetent govt; we would not be so well of as we are now.

You must be taking the piss!

How can anyone sit there and not only watch, but support a government to take our nation from $20Billion in the bank and ZERO $0 DEBT, to hundreds of billions in debt, finnish NOTHNG, COST LIVES, remove the border protection THAT WORKED, impose a great big tax THAT ACHIEVES NOTHING, introduce dud policies such as grocery watch, fuel watch, cash for clunkers, offer 30c, THATS THIRTY CENTS per day, per head of cattle to farmers to feed their cattle during the live export debacle THEY CREATED, introduce the il failed NBN,, dream up policies such as the NDIS and Gonski, knowing there is no money and impose a HUGE TAX on the only sector that is getting anywhere, then HAVE THE HIDE to say THEY DID A GREAT JOB.

Pleeeeese tell me you're taking the piss. PLEEEEESE!

Im dumbfounded to say the least! Especially considering it took Howard/Costello the best part of ten years to pay back Keatings debt, thats loosing Testra along the way, when these incompetent fools took only SIX YEARS TO UNDO IT ALL, and create the mess you call a GREAT ECONOMY.

Give me a break!
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 4:29:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on rehctub, don't go having a stroke!
I think we can safely say that all Governments we have had, have all had their ups and downs.

Labor steered us through the world financial crisis, and we came out much better than most other nations.

Howard and co. WERE voted out of office, so they were unpopular at that time, and I doubt anyone has ever been happy with the GST he promised he wouldn't impose on us.

The parental leave scheme is the best policy Abbott has ever had, and you are bagging him for it. Other well off countries have even more generous PPL schemes, and their financial sky never fell in.
Who better to support than parents being supported to stay home with their newborns as long as possible?

Nothing but good can come from parents and babies bonding well together without the added financial and emotional,wrench of being separated so soon after birth to go back to work.

Babies can be breast fed for longer, mums will be less likely to suffer post natal depression, financial problems will be less, and both parents will be happier knowing one or other parent will be home with baby.
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 March 2014 5:53:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rehctub,

I'm a bit concerned about the government's paid
parental scheme. Concerned, because I'm not sure
how the government is going to be able to fund it
if it isn't going to be means-tested especially
during the difficult financial times that lie
ahead of us.

If someone could explain to me how this scheme will
work without means-testing, I'd be grateful.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 March 2014 5:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, "If someone could explain to me how this scheme will work without means-testing, I'd be grateful"

Goodness gracious dear, do you mean you are unaware of the legislative provisions related to maternity, adoption/foster and parental leave within the Australian Public Service? Or are you ducking that subject along with Poirot?

Allow me to advise you as others are likely to have done before, that women public servants get their leave and all entitlements at their current remuneration. They have done so for decades. What about the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973?

A far as the feminists who advise government are concerned the 'initiative' they advised Abbott to take would only bring the conditions of women in the private sector onto a par with the conditions already enjoyed by women in government departments and agencies for 40 years. The angst at present is because Abbott adopted the policy and not ex-PM Julia Whatshername, who was too parsimonious to pay peanuts to single supporting mums. Or in Julia Whatshername's case, too mean to support an increase in the single rate of aged pension, despite the majority of single pensioners being women.

The APS has quite a feminised workforce and so have most public service agencies, federal, state and local government. It is worth asking if you intend that (say) Elizabeth Broderick, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner should have her present entitlements under the relevant Act curtailed if she was to claim them. What about (say) a senior government minister, who arguably was on damned good conditions too, should she have been able to avail herself of taxpayer funded conditions via Medicare as well for her and her partner to have a child?

As mentioned earlier, I don't care which way the coin lands on this policy, but there is obviously a lot of reticence from all parties for frank disclosure and public consultation. More 'I'm alright Jack (Jill?)' and political gamesmanship from the elites.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 March 2014 6:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otb,

What I can't get my head around is how is this
paid parental scheme going to work that the
current government intends implementing.
As I understand it - women who earn quite generous
incomes are going to receive more generous
paid parental leave. I would have thought that this
scheme would be means-tested. But it apparently
is not going to be. And that's what I have difficulty
with. Why should someone on a very high income and
can afford the best - be paid to have children.
It would be the equivalence of giving pensions to
millionaires. To me at least it doesn't make sense.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 March 2014 7:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Again I must repeat that my interest is only that government consult with the public and that openness and transparency apply.

This is not a new policy. It fits in neatly with a range of actions that stem from UN and other international agreements on women's issues.

As I figure it as an observer over time, there are undeniably some changes that are sorely needed, but we need an Australian solution. Mainly because what has been implemented in other countries for example in Nordic countries has warts. Some good stuff, but serious warts.

Regardless, we are ill-advised to take the spin from any political interests/lobbyists at face value. I am particularly concerned by the class war being waged, which so far has ensured that numbers are out of the equation. I am not convinced for instance that there would be many women in senior positions who might avail themselves of the benefit, and those who might are wanted back by their employers who are willing to pay.

While I might be little irksome in wanting to return to the fundamental issues, that is where the public is being mushroomed.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 March 2014 7:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otb,

Thank You for clarifying things for me.
Your concerns are understandable.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 March 2014 7:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to give a lead on my last sentence above, specifically what is the 'problem' that the leave is intended to treat. Does the problem really matter and if so what other solutions exist?

I am sure that the feminists who are often in the limelight see PPL as a priority, but I am not so sure they have ever asked the women they claim to represent what they really want. I believe there are other more worthwhile initiatives that should come first. That applies to public servants too where the 'cowdozer' activists in clerical unions have had their head for years and given priority to benefits they thought were best. But ask women and you might find that there are other solutions they would have preferred such as the employer-sponsored childminding the union heavies opposed and constantly derailed.

As I have posted many times before on similar threads, there needs to be an acceptance from the start that women go through many transitions in life. All are valid choices for the person. Some women do put family first and that is fine. Some might return to work later, but would then put flexibility first. Unions and feminists are quite incapable of putting women ahead of their own interests, agendas and power games.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 March 2014 7:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Onthebeach.
Excuse my cynicism, but you would be the least likely person to know 'what women really want'...

Abbott would not be bothered trying to buy the women's vote if he was not absolutely sure what they want.
You give way too much power to these scary 'feminists' that seem to rule everything you don't like about politics.
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little off topic here for the core discussion but perhaps relevant to the broader discussion is a link I posted yesterday to a Ted talk http://on.ted.com/c0494

In particular OTB's point about different transitions and choices sparked my interest in reposting the link here. I struggled when the speaker used the term "resocialise men", so many dodgy connotations to that but I think the following points have relevance.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,
-"Babies can be breast fed for longer, mums will be less likely to suffer post natal depression, financial problems will be less, and both parents will be happier knowing one or other parent will be home with baby."-
What has this got to do with me. These are not my kids. Why should I care one iota how these kids and their parents feel? Do you really think they care an iota about me and my problems.
-"Labor steered us through the world financial crisis, and we came out much better than most other nations"-
You actually believe this c*%p?
You probably believe that Joe Starlin and his mate Beria were good blokes too I suppose.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:41:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,

Good to revisit, thanks.

However Oz feminists such as Anne Summers bounce between narrow rails though and reject anything different.

General Comment
Ultimately I do not believe that business, especially small business, can afford equivalent conditions and policies to those in the public services and public quangos, or enjoyed by politicians for that matter.

The alternatives are:
- movement of businesses overseas, which has been happening for some years; and
- extension of casual work, with more temporary contract work performed by labor from overseas - some of whom will remain here.

I don't see any chance whatsoever that Oz feminists would countenance changes in employment conditions for men so that fathers can take up those domestic and child care responsibilities they say that men should perform but are not (apparently).

So I guess we will just continue on with the gender politics that deliver lifelong careers for those on the gravy train with jolly good contacts (networking not favoritism, mind you).
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 March 2014 11:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB, I may not be as convinced as some that militant feminists dominate the political landscape. Certainly a lot of influence in some areas but I think even in those areas they still work by misdirection rather than outright control. Eg when earlier discussions were happening about maternity leave there was still space in the debate to discuss parental leave and some feminists supported/advocated that approach.

I also think that there are enough feminists around who do have a preference for equality (putting aside the debate about what equality means) to have hope that some of the issues can be addressed.

As a male single parent I saw a shift in attitude over a number of years where my role as a male caregiver was not so readily dismissed as it had been when my son was much younger. I think the debate during Howards push for shared rsponsibility helped raise awareness of the role of fathers as carers.

The point about affordability is a different issue to the broader concept of as far as possible making it possible for both men and women to have choice in the roles employed within their families.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 17 March 2014 5:28:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Thanks for the link.
Some very valid points raised.

My children were born in the US and I continued working
right up to seven months. There was no such thing as
"Maternity Leave," at that time or any entitlements of
any kind. On our return to Australia and getting back into
the workforce, I couldn't believe how lucky women were in
this country, and the benefits they received here in
comparison with the US. Big difference between the two
countries in many areas.
I guess what we have to do as a society is
decide our priorities - and - where our money is to be spent.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 March 2014 10:03:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said RObert.
We have to remember this is paid parental leave, not paid mothers leave.
The father can be paid to stay home with baby if mum is the one who needs to go back to work.
As long as baby has one parent at home, it doesn't matter to the family which one.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 17 March 2014 10:05:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, firstly, i doubt the scheme will pass, however, putting that aside, are you aware that those women on high incomes have in many cases paid more in tax than many have earned. So, why shouldn't they be entitled to the PPL.

Also, are you suggesting its fair for high income earners, after contributing taxes all their lives, get fronded upon because they are successful . In fact, the system is so wrong, that two workers, earning the same high income, where one is careful and saves well, while the other spends every cent, sees the wasteful one get supported, by the prudent one. Go figure!

If you excel in sport, you get a gold medal, whereas if you excel in your working life, you get fronded upon. How is this fair?

OTB.....Just to give a lead on my last sentence above, specifically what is the 'problem' that the leave is intended to treat. Does the problem really matter and if so what other solutions exist?

My suggestion is super.

Say a woman earns say $50,000, which would mean they would receive $50,000 for a year. Same goes for $150,000.

So, if the government allowed both parents to make additional co contributions to their super, at 15% tax, then draw their PPL out of their super, and continue concessional contributions until they have repaid their super (only one account).

Now they could do this as expectant parents and, if they don't have children, they owe the tax.

At least this way, the parents, who chose to have children, are getting a tax break, while removing the burden from the general tax payer.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:41:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rehctub,

I accept PPL for parents for the care of the children
and the esssential running of the household on an
equal basis per child not based on the amount of income
earned when in employment. There should be equal assistance
no matter what the income earned.

I don't believe that more should be given than the essential
care needed for unemployed parent and child. Is it right to
allow the high earners to be given more money than they need?
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 March 2014 5:55:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy.....care needed for unemployed parent and child. Is it right to
allow the high earners to be given more money than they need?

I would suggest in this case, no, as my position is that nobody should be financially responsible for anothers child.

On that point, if a high income earner gets more by way of PPL, chances are they are going to have their hand out after the leave is over.

So, on what grounds does child support not get means tested, like, why does one child deserve more, just because the non parenting parent has a higher paid job.

So they are expected to pay extra when it comes to child support, yet they are not entitled to more if they are a parent involved in the raising of a baby.

It seem like certain laws are conveniently manipulated if you ask me.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 1:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze......I think we can safely say that all Governments we have had, have all had their ups and downs.

Yep, I agree, so what were labor's up's?
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 1:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

Hopefully the government will listen to objections being
raised -
and will come up with a better and more equitable solution.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 1:21:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can it be more 'equitable' if women in the public services are paid in accord with their remuneration package but you are saying that women outside of the public services should get substantially less than their current remuneration?

Your 'equity' would require reduction in the entitlements women in the federal public service have enjoyed since 1973. Do you intend to change the relevant Acts to rescind their benefits?

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00059

That is the question I asked Poirot earlier and you have ducked it too.

Don't you also imagine that your regressive policy might discourage women from pursuing higher roles?

Again, I don't care what way the coin falls on this one, but it does appear that you may be out to oppose Abbott, when you should be thinking things through. Pull one string and there is a whole lot of policy that really ought be reviewed and now. Because much of it is based on ideology and has scant regard for what many women, not just an elite of middle class female bureaucrats and academics, would see as priorities for expenditure of those scarce federal bucks.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 2:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otb,

I can't put it any clearer as to what I
meant. I wouldn't dream of depriving anyone
of their entitlements and I certainly would
not discourage anyone of being the best that
they can be. However in the case of PPL -
I feel rather strongly that it should be
means-tested. But of course that's only my
opinion. And surely there's room in this forum
for all of us to have different opinions - don't
you agree?
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 5:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

You may still be right for another reason.

I have yet to see any evidence that maternity or parental leave increases the participation of women in the workforce, which is why the entitlements were proposed in the first place. The main supporters seem to be educated middle class, especially as far as the women supporters of the policy are concerned, and it is unlikely that the provision or non-provision of the paid leave would affect their participation in the workforce. Or if it did the effect would be marginal. Add to that, the fact that the greatest majority would enjoy permanency and are not casual as many lower paid workers are.

Matter of fact you may have to resort to dynamite to dislodge public servants and academics from their positions. On top of that, women in public agencies are continually being fast-tracked, so any who even half want a career are guaranteed it and often on their own terms.

Should such leave exist at all is the question and it should be set against the evidence, and as mentioned earlier, other available options.

Many women might prefer employer sponsored child creches instead for example. However unions are against that and so too are the feminists who chatter in the media and advise government. As far as lower paid workers are concerned, child care close to or at work would be a boon.

Again, I don't care which way the coin lands, just saying that those who seem to have a mighty effect on policy (and many are on the guvvy payroll in some way or another) seem to have always been rooting for what suits them and payment of full salary and maintenance of all entitlements (keep the car too?) is their thing.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 8:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
otb,

What you say makes a great deal of sense and I can see that
You're obviously more knowledgeable on this issue
than I am. You've given me heaps to think about.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 9:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no doubt that once any PPL scheme was itroduced, that particiption in the workforce by women would have dropped, simply because there lies the potential for unreliabillity in the job, a position thats often seen as,better to avoid than to deal with.

Now while im not suggesting this is right, i am suggesting that particulaly within small to medium businesses, this would be fact.

You see, when you are a small business especially, you cant afford to have staff who are unreliable, regardless of the reason, because it can cost you dearly.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 8:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rehctub,

I feel that if a woman is determined to have a career
as well as a family she will find ways to make it work.
I know this from my own family experiences with my
daughter-in-laws.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 10:13:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to what some imagine in this thread, feminist policy does rule in government. The belief is that women are 'suppressed' where they do not have the same or better participation in work than men, and where they do not have the same or better take-home pay than men. This is not about equality which is already guaranteed by legislation, but claimed equity of outcomes.

I am not concerned about the policy slant, that is for others to argue. The results of it are seen in public employment and PPL is the same ideology and the same policy being developed a bit more and applied to the private sector.

I am not arguing about the overall cost, although in the public sector many hundreds of low level jobs are now non-existent and the central offices of departments have bloomed with 'management' jobs while the previous jobs in States and small towns have been wiped out. There have to be savings somewhere to pay for these conditions, obviously.

My concern is whether the solutions achieve the stated goals and then, whether value for money is being obtained. If more participation is the goal, PPL is not the best solution and may be no solution at all. More child care places would help more, but then again, only in increasing the participation at the bottom. The elite of middle class careerists don't need that either, but any guvvy hand-out is always welcome.

The experience of the public services seems to be that low level production and services jobs and even whole State branches will be lost through the expense of it. Unlike the public services though which have an inexhaustable supply of $$ from the taxpayer and can withdraw services at will, the private sector must go overseas or go to the wall.

Maybe it is time to withdraw from simply adopting more of these so-called solutions being imported from overseas and re-thinking the ideology and narrow lobbying at the bottom of it all.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 10:37:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OTB,

Let's focus. This is about parental care during a new baby's first 12 months of life - for the child's benefit, more so than for benefit of the parent(s); or so it should be.
It should also include a relatively short prenatal period (within the overall 12 months allowance) - any more extensive prenatal leave requirement perhaps being covered by other leave provisions, sick, special, recreation or long service.

It should be focused on care by the mum (and OF the mum), with any leave provision for the dad preferably being covered by/from his employment arrangements. Hence, I think it would be better called a Maternity Allowance (though many may disagree).
I am not keen on this allowance being available to any substantial degree to a dad (or a lesbian partner) who decides to go on leave to enable his partner (the actual birth-mum, And who is his actual wife/civil-spouse or defacto) to quickly resume work after the birth. To me this would be contrary to the principles of the scheme.
I am also hesitant about any provision for gay adoption of a baby of less than 12 months of age. (Though adoption of such a baby by a working 'wife' might still qualify.)

TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 20 March 2014 4:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

Part of the need is for financial security - and here we are focused on the potential impact on a working birth-mum who will have to take time off work to have the baby and to look after it during most, if not all, of those first twelve months.
I think the first 6 months is crucial, and should preferably be on full normal pay (but capped at $60,000 per annum), with second 6 months on half pay (per same cap) - but which may be added-to by sick, special, recreation or long-service leave (up to the overall 'cap') by the employer. (Any more than this being at the employer's discretion.)

Second factor is resumption of employment. Here, resumption at full or part-time in the previous or an equivalent position after 12 months leave may present significant problems for the employer; and some problems for the employee regarding catching-up with developments.
This may be the Achilles-heel of the 12-month plan; so I think some leeway would be in order depending on the particular employment category involved - with, say, part-time being required during the second 6 months, to 'keep in touch'.

Straight 12 months - can be too big an ask.
$75,000 'cap' (half of $150,000 max salary) smacks of largesse (especially of 'other people's money), and of misdirection of the principle purposes of the scheme.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 20 March 2014 4:39:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpeter, as is the case with many posters, you seem to have forgotten one VERY CRUCIAL party within this scenario, the employer.

Most small businesses are on their knees and, I suspect that if not for the finacial commitment they have made, not to mention the assets theynhave tied up, many of these would simply throw their hands in the air and say it's all too hard now.

Furthermore, we have the likes of Qantas makimg noises, on top of the knowledge that we are loosing ALL THREE of our car manufacturers, and what do combined governments do, they impose yet more disruption and costs on an already buckling sector.

It's just plain crazy, because like most things in life, having children is a personal choice, and whether some other country does it or not makes no difference what so ever as the one thing that is dwindling here in this country is the care factor about the employers, as they after all are what makes most things possible in the first place, as they take thenrisks to provide the jobs, FOR A REWARD of cause.

However, we are now seeing the results of wha happens when the risks outweigh the rewards, yet we fail to head the warnings. Just plain crazy.

Give people an affordable way to fund their own PPL with tax incentives I say.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 20 March 2014 4:55:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone.
It all comes back to:
"WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S BABY?"
After all I never participated in making the thing in the first place but I am to be punished just as though I did.
Isn't that 'Child Support'
let them take it out of all their accumulated entitlements or maybe have a weekly pay deduction to build a maternity leave bank that they pay into themselves for their own benefit.
LEAVE ME OUT OF IT.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Thursday, 20 March 2014 5:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

The aim of such conditions was never to improve the lot of infants, nor for that matter to increase fertility. It was feminist inspired and directed to increase number of women in jobs (participation) and to increase women's share of the economy (economic participation). -Although many men wryly say that their wages cheque goes direct to a woman's handbag and women control and perform the lion's share of the spending of income.

It is about equality of outcomes aka 'equity' for women in all areas of life, which goes much further than equality of opportunity. It isn't really equality of opportunity at all, but 'positive' affirmative action to achieve 'equity' outcomes. Where 'equity' has its feminist PC meaning.

Now as I have been saying, others can debate the ins and outs of that and whether the Australian public has ever been consulted on it (which is doubtful). Because what I am on about is whether the 'solutions' are solutions at all or more likely, policies that further advantage an already advantaged elite of educated, middle class women. An elite who have been riding the gravy train for decades and in some cases for their entire working lives.

If we really wanted to improve the participation of women in the workforce there are other things to try, one being to encourage them into apprenticeships in the trades. Another to encourage employer sponsored child care and so on.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 March 2014 5:40:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB, if, as you say, this is an attempt to increase women in the workplace, I fear it will back fire big time, simply because it makes employing women more unattractive, knowing you will have to fund not only their PPL, but their replacement as well should they choose to have a baby.

This brings me to another area of consideration, what if the replacement turns out to be better suited to the employer, what then?

The other problem with the PPL,scheme, current or Abbotts, is that I believe a return to work, post leave, is at the discretion of the worker and, that can cause issues with staffing, especially if the employer misses an opportunity to secure a well suited replacement, simply because they couldn't commit.

I am afraid the whole system has too many what ifs and, given that creates uncertainty, this uncertainty can cause women to be overlooked for roles.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 21 March 2014 8:50:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrisgaffe,
Back on page 5 you asked if someone could tell you who pays for PPL and as yet you do not have a straight answer.

Now I am not sure but it appears that public servants have PPL now and what the current debate is about is that PPL should apply to the private sector as well.

Maybe OTB can clarify the situation for you, as he seems well versed on the issue.

I get the feeling that taxpayers are now paying the PPL for public servants. Not surprized but still disgusted as with the baby bonus.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 21 March 2014 9:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/politics/35814-delivery-of-abbott-s-paid-parental-leave-hits-a-budget-bump.html#

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay

Re federal Public Service,
Fair Work Act2009
Paid Parental Leave Act 2010
Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 1:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, "Not surprized but still disgusted as with the baby bonus"

The baby bonus did increase 'fertility' population which was its aim. Not saying I would support it. It did not sit well with the big swinging *bleeps* of Oz feminism, because it did not fit with their elite middle class careerism.

On the other hand, feminist 'initiatives' (inverted commas because it is all imported from northern Europe) to improve the participation of women in work and in the economy (as they see it) rarely deliver even on the very vague aims/benefits used to justify them. A few feminists blew the gaff by reluctantly admitting that Abbott's PPL was the wet dream of Oz feminists. How DARE Abbott steal a march on them!

There are very few people around who care, but policy should be evidence-based and results obtained should be measured against goals, which should be specific and measurable. That said, it is very difficult to take issue with Abbott's PPL when a whole raft of so-called women friendly conditions have been introduced in the public services and more broadly over the years without any independent examination of whether they even attain the rather fuzzy aims expressed for them in the first place.

The federal public service has had to cull practically every low level production job that could serve as an entry point for ordinary women (or men). That is to pay for the conditions that advantaged the feminist elite, the educated middle class women for whom 'management' jobs are the minimum, and preferably a senior executive leadership status role pronto, one that does not require content knowledge and experience, and can allow them to use their networking, communication and liaison skills.

It isn't only Tony Abbott who has been corralled into adopting policies of feminist group think. Maybe there needs to be some thought as to how Australia can participate economically in its part of the world, and whether it should continue to blindly adopt the feminist social policies being imported from Northern Europe. It is ideology not evidence, practicality and good sense, that drives such policies.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 2:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
So I will be paying (taxpayer) and at quote "Recipients will receive full pay from the government for six months" unquote.

This means that a middle management female (or male for that matter) paying themselves (in there own business) $100,000 a year is going to get 3 times the annual married pensioner rate for an SIW (self inflicted wound)in half the time it takes a pensioner to get his years pension.

And worst of all for a non productive purpose.

It seems like a classic case of social/sexual discrimination to me.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Friday, 21 March 2014 3:25:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chrisgaff1000,

Maybe you might like to figure in as well the direct and indirect costs including administrative overheads of the victim industry of which 'women', more exactly maintaining the lifestyles of the feminist elite of educated, middle class women, is merely one part.

Since the days of Gough Whitlam too. It is a gravy train that never slows because new 'needs' are always found.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 4:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....And worst of all for a non productive purpose

Chris, how can bringing a child in to the world, here in Oz a least be considered a non productive purpose.

They have to be fed, then schooled, then hopefully work, all of which takes money, which means spending of that money, which means jobs.

The long term aim is for them to themselves be employed, which then produces taxes (hopefully) which can then be used to fund the next generation.

Please understand that I am opposed to any PPL scheme, but I do think if money is available for anything, it would be better spent to make child care FOR WORKNG PARENTS more affordable, because a present there's a fine line between working again, or not being worth it for the costs involved in child care etc. Sadly though, only if the parent works.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 21 March 2014 5:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

I would like to give you a great big hug.
You Sir, are a positive force on this forum.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 7:46:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

Never, ever, flash your taxpayer teats. LOL
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 12:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,
Parents choose to be parents not for the population growth factor.
Parents should be totally responsible for their own situation and their families.
Mothers should stay at home and care for their children and not hand them over to a third party for care while they go off to work for money they need to support their 'over the top' life styles.
Half the socio/sibling problems of today stem from farmed out children that have developed a schizoid twin family psychosis.
They goon to be the undereducated, under-performing and underachieving social misfits that fill our courts today.
They choose to mortgage themselves into massive debt that needs to be serviced thus two working partners etc.
Two 4x4 in the garage also mortgaged and all the rest of the paraphernalia that goes with the lifestyle.
Why should I pay for someone else's child minding as well as their birth and now the PPS?
I even pay for their medical consultations for the pill so they can have sex for fun and then for the pill itself.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB.....The baby bonus did increase 'fertility' population which was its aim.

I do not hide the fact that I was a fan of the Howard government, buy, this was yet another government policy that was simply il thought out, evidence being in the way that so many 'unmarried' kids, had kids themselves, just for the money. Meanwhile, working mothers/couples, who the scheme was no doubt targeted at, found that while on the one hand they received the bonus, while on the othe were faced with increased, hard to secure, child care costs.

The result of the BB was a lowering of the age whereby one could own a plasma, or an upgraded sound system for their dysfunctional families corrola.

What a waste fest it was.

At some point in time, albeit, too late in my view, governments have to come to grips with the fact that welfare, provided by way of cash, is simply providing a feeding frenzy for the local pubs and clubs, and the likes of the Harvey Normans of the land.

Now of cause there are many recipients who do the right thing, but sadly, just one case of welfare waste, undoes the good that so many respectful recipients do.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....Half the socio/sibling problems of today stem from farmed out children that have developed a schizoid twin family psychosis.

Sorry Chris, but I have to disagree, as it is my view that most of todays youth problems stem from lack of discipline, brought about mainly by do-gooders with their successful push to have corporal punishment removed from schools, and/or their making disciplining children socially unacceptable, or, by plain laziness or inherited traits from the parents.

As for day care, quality day care in my view, and personal experience is priceless, evidence being in the fact that the majority of grade one attendees are now able to perform basic reading and righting skills from day one. Furthermore, children from single child families, who have attended day care have reasonable social interaction skills, something that can be a problem with one child families.

As for being social misfits, unfortunately kids are (in most cases) the product of their upbringing, whereby a major cause is broken relationships where they ( mainly boys) get to an age where their mother (unusually their carer) looses control.

Finally, please understand that I do not support Abbott PPL scheme either and hope it fails to pass.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 22 March 2014 12:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

I fervently hope that the Abbott government learns from this and exacts some accountability from the feminist elite of educated middle class women who are ensconced in taxpayer-funded 'gender' advising roles and who proffer advice to government that is slanted to further advantage them above the 'common herd'.

Then there is the expensive fraud of it all. Millions being wasted for decades on offices, travel and remuneration for a uniquely selfish, egocentric, egotistical, but above all materialistic feminist elite who merely copy and paste suspect research, findings and policies that suit them from elsewhere and don't bother to consider any Australian differences.

It will be a very long, very cold day in Hell before any of the smug, self-seeking feminist elite in Oz ever consider the real, fundamental issues that affect women and especially women with families, such as town and city planning, transport, PPTE and yes, the example I gave earlier, employer sponsored child care at or near the workplace.

It will be an even colder day in Hell before the smug, self-seeking feminist elite in Oz ever accept the rather obvious, indisputable reality that women go through many transitions in life and no, not all of them want to always put career and materialism first in their lives. It is about a life worth living, family and friends, not expensive shoes and expensive hotels.

But then the feminist elite would have to accept that women really do have choices and are quite happy to be accountable for their own decisions. All women need as does the remainder of society is government that will consult broadly and directly with the public ans especially those affected by government decisions, and not just rely on advice from the squeaky wheels.

Any practical recommendation will inevitably come from within the affected community and not from a smug self-centered feminist elite with the front to claim that they represent women without ever being elected, and probably without ever rubbing shoulders with the 'common herd' of ordinary women they likely despise anyhow.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 2:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,
I don't know where you get this claptrap you sprook from but I can tell you, from someone at the pointy end of social/economic equation, that apart from the expected implosion of indigenous community life, the next greatest challenge to law and order in the north of QLD is the vicious thuggery and impersonal criminality exhibited in the youth of the so called sophisticated darlings of the latte set.
When you bounce up to their door at midnight with their 12 year old in custody and you find the babysitter trying to handle two or three spoiled little s*&^ts who spend their days in your beloved child care, you can understand why the sitter has lost one.
Personally I couldn't give a damn whether these kids grow up in kindergartens or creches or pre school or whatever just so long as the parents pay for it and not the tax payer.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:42:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy