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.

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.

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.

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.

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>

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.