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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?