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.

otb,

Thank You for clarifying things for me.
Your concerns are understandable.

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.

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.

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

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.